DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 24 January 2024, 15 October 2024, and 26 March 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-10 were originally filed.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 7, Applicant recites a first instance of the limitations, “the image processing method according to claim 6”. However, Applicant lacks antecedent basis for this limitation, thereby rendering it indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes this was an inadvertent drafting error and will interpret this as the substrate processing method according to claim 6.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Gosho et al., US20220301895 (“GOSHO”).
Re claim 1, GOSHO discloses a replacement end time determination method in a process of replacing a liquid to be replaced by a processing fluid in a supercritical state in a chamber, the replacement end time determination method comprising:
maintaining the processing fluid in the chamber in the supercritical state by supplying and discharging the processing fluid into and from the chamber [0027-0028] in which the liquid to be replaced is present in accordance with a predetermined supply/discharge recipe for filling an inside of the chamber with the processing fluid in the supercritical state [0036];
detecting a density of the processing fluid discharged from the chamber and accumulating a difference between a detection value at each time and a value indicated by a reference density profile acquired in advance [0051-0060]; and
determining whether or not replacement of the liquid to be replaced by the processing fluid is ended, on a basis of an accumulated value and a threshold value acquired in advance [0076-0082], wherein
the reference density profile is acquired as a density profile representing a time change of the density, which is acquired by detecting the density of the processing fluid in the chamber while supplying and discharging the processing fluid into and from the chamber in accordance with the supply/discharge recipe in a state where the liquid to be replaced is not present in the chamber [0061-0065]
Re claim 2, GOSHO discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. GOSHO further discloses:
wherein the replacement is determined to be ended when the accumulated value of a difference reaches the threshold value [0074]
Re claim 3, GOSHO discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. GOSHO further discloses:
wherein the replacement is determined to be ended when a time change quantity of the accumulated value becomes smaller than the threshold value [0091-0094]
Re claim 4, GOSHO discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. GOSHO further discloses:
wherein the density is detected on a discharge path for discharging the processing fluid from the chamber [0051]
Re claim 6, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9. Furthermore, the additional “drying” feature is disclosed in GOSHO in at least [0036], [0047], and [0058-0059]
Re claim 7, GOSHO discloses the method of claim 6, as shown above. GOSHO further discloses:
wherein the reference density profile is acquired in a state where the substrate with no liquid to be replaced adhering thereto is accommodated in the chamber [0060]
Re claim 8, GOSHO discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a chamber which has an internal space capable of accommodating a substrate with a liquid to be replaced adhering thereto [0020];
a fluid supply/discharge part which supplies a processing fluid into the chamber and discharges the processing fluid from the chamber [0021];
a density detector which detects a density of the processing fluid discharged from the chamber [0051]; and
a controller which controls the fluid supply/discharge part on a basis of a detection result of the density detector [0058], wherein
the controller performs the replacement end time determination method according to claim 1 [0058], [see above] and,
when the controller determines that the replacement is ended, the controller causes the fluid supply/discharge part to discharge the processing fluid to decompress an inside of the chamber to dry the substrate [0060]
Re claim 10, GOSHO discloses the apparatus of claim 8, as shown above. GOSHO further discloses:
wherein the density detector detects the density of the processing fluid by a mass flow meter disposed on a discharge flow path for discharging the processing fluid from the chamber [0036]
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over GOSHO in view of Sumi et al., US20200411336 (“SUMI”).
Re claim 5, GOSHO discloses the method of claim 4, as shown above. GOSHO further discloses,
a substrate is accommodated in the chamber while being supported in a horizontal position by a flat plate-like substrate support member [0044];
the density is detected in a plurality of flow paths discharging the fluid flowing above and below the substrate support member [0033-0034], [0054]; and
a total of the difference is accumulated in the plurality of flow paths with respect to the reference density [0060]
GOSHO fails to explicitly disclose the density is detected in each of an upper discharge flow path for discharging the processing fluid flowing above the substrate in the chamber and a lower discharge flow path for discharging the processing fluid flowing below the substrate support member; and a total of the difference is accumulated in each of the upper discharge flow path and the lower discharge flow path
However, SUMI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a substrate processing device configured with an upper and lower flow path around a substrate supporting member [0076]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify GOSHO to include the particular structures of SUMI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a more stable flow along the substrate (see at least SUMI [0007]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, SUMI merely teaches that it is well-known to provide an upper and lower flow path around a substrate holder for density measurements. Since both GOSHO and SUMI disclose similar substrate processing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20220189765, Jeong et al. – substrate drying apparatus using supercritical fluids
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855