DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 11/25/2025 and the RCE filed 1/15/2026.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending.
Claims 20-21 are cancelled.
Claim 22 is new.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are currently amended.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that claims 1, 11, and 16 are not currently written as structurally requiring the gas or the solvent-enriched liquid layer. However, the tank solution is recited as part of the control system operation, thus is currently written as structurally limiting of the claim.
In fairness to the Applicant due to the re-assignment of this case and in light of the prosecution history thus far, the Examiner will construe the gas and solvent-enriched liquid layer as structurally limiting for purposes of this action only.
In the next reply to this Office Action, Applicant must incorporate the following minor amendment (or one substantially similar) to claims 1, 11, and 16 in order to bring the written scope of the claim in line with the Examiner’s current interpretation and Applicant’s apparent intent:
a control system configured to:
introduce the tank solution into the tank region;
introduce the gas into the drying region;
introduce the solvent to the solvent region;
move a wafer out of the tank solution and into the drying region; and …
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. 2009/0084405) in view of Bergman (US Patent 6,286,231), with Konishi (US Patent 6,145,519) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a cleaning chamber, comprising: a tank region configured to accommodate a tank solution (see Figures 1 & 4, treating tank 1, step S1. [0054]); a drying region configured to accommodate a gas (see Figures 1 & 4, lifter 31, inert gas nozzles 34. refer to upper region where lifter 31 is raised. [0060]); a solvent region configured to provide a solvent between the tank region and the drying region to separate the tank solution and the gas, wherein the solvent region comprises a layer of solvent, at least one sensor configured to determine at least one parameter value associated with the gas within the drying region (see Figures 1 & 4, concentration measuring unit 66, step S8. [0041], [0060]-[0062]); and a control system configured to (see Figures 1 & 4, controller 67. [0043]): move a wafer out of the tank solution and into the drying region (see Figures 1 & 4, steps S1, S6. [0004], [0055]-[0060]); and perform at least one remediation within the cleaning chamber in response to a determination that the at least one parameter value exceeds at least one threshold value (see Figures 1 & 4, steps S5, S9-S12).
Kimura does not explicitly teach wherein the solvent region comprises, at a top surface of the tank solution, a solvent-enriched liquid layer that is a portion of the tank solution at the top surface having a higher concentration of the solvent than a remainder of the tank solution, the solvent-enriched liquid layer being disposed below a bottom surface of the drying region.
However, the Examiner regards the limitation above as an inherent feature of Kimura due to the nature of the process chemicals used therein. Kimura describes providing a solvent vapor supply for isopropyl alcohol ([0004], “IPA”) in addition to a deionized water bath ([0005]) and nitrogen gas ([0037]).
The Examiner notes isopropyl alcohol, water, and nitrogen gas are the same process chemicals used in the instant application (par. [0025] of the instant PG-Pub).
In accordance, a PHOSITA would expect the same nitrogen/IPA/water layers as claimed to be present in the Kimura apparatus despite not being explicitly described.
As further evidence of inherency, the Examiner submits Konishi as evidence of the layering effect in a similar process and apparatus (see Konishi C5, L32-43 and Fig. 1c).
Kimura does not teach a solvent output interface having an intake portal interfacing a water line of the solvent-enriched liquid layer, and a solvent drain fluidly downstream of the solvent output interface.
However, Bergman teaches the above limitation (Bergman – and Fig. 2, moveable drain #54 with drain throttle valve #80 to a drain; described as extracting from just below the liquid-gas interface which would put it in the claimed position of Kimura).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kimura apparatus to comprise the moveable drain of Bergman in order to withdraw liquid while maintaining the surface tension gradient along the gas-liquid interface and to prevent gas from escaping before dissolving into the liquid (Bergman – C5, L48-58).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura teaches wherein the at least one sensor is disposed in the drying region (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, concentration measuring unit 66).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura teaches wherein the drying region is above the tank region (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura teaches wherein the drying region is separated from the tank region (see Fig. 1, “region” is any defined space where gas or liquid is present).
Regarding claim 22, Kimura does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Bergman teaches wherein the intake portal of the solvent output interface extends into the solvent-enriched liquid layer (Bergman – and Fig. 2, moveable drain #54 with drain throttle valve #80 to a drain; described as extracting from just below the liquid-gas interface which would put it in the claimed position of Kimura).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kimura apparatus to comprise the moveable drain of Bergman in order to withdraw liquid while maintaining the surface tension gradient along the gas-liquid interface and to prevent gas from escaping before dissolving into the liquid (Bergman – C5, L48-58).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. 2009/0084405) and Bergman (US Patent 6,286,231) with Konishi (US Patent 6,145,519), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, and 22 above, further in view of Yang (US Pub. 2004/0194806).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, and 22 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kimura does not teach a collector connected to the drying region, wherein the collector is configured to collect the gas in the drying region.
Yang however, teaches using a side vapor conduit to admit IPA vapor to a concentration sensor (see Yang’s Figure 2, substrate cleaning tank 38, IPA concentration detector 56, IPA vapor conduit 57. [0006]-[0007], [0028]).
Modifying Kimura’s concentration measuring unit 66 to be admitted IPA vapor/atmosphere similar to how Yang is using IPA vapor conduit 57 to admit IPA vapor to concentration detector 56 would yield a predictable variation of Kimura (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”). Examiner considers that the housing of Yang’s concentration detector 56 functions as a collector, as the housing would collect vapor/gas within for detection from the IPA vapor conduit 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kimura and more particularly to have a vapor conduit lead to concentration measuring unit 66 because said modification is conventional in the art in view of Yang and would yield a predictable variation of Kimura still resulting in the solvent/IPA concentration being measured.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kimura does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Yang teaches wherein the at least one sensor is disposed in the collector (refer to claim 3 rejection regarding housing being the collector).
Modifying Kimura’s concentration measuring unit 66 to be admitted IPA vapor/atmosphere similar to how Yang is using IPA vapor conduit 57 to admit IPA vapor to concentration detector 56 would yield a predictable variation of Kimura (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”). Examiner considers that the housing of Yang’s concentration detector 56 functions as a collector, as the housing would collect vapor/gas within for detection from the IPA vapor conduit 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kimura and more particularly to have a vapor conduit lead to concentration measuring unit 66 because said modification is conventional in the art in view of Yang and would yield a predictable variation of Kimura still resulting in the solvent/IPA concentration being measured.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. 2009/0084405) and Bergman (US Patent 6,286,231) with Konishi (US Patent 6,145,519), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, and 22 above, further in view of Mehmandoust (US Pub. 2001/0047595).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, and 22 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches wherein the at least one parameter value comprises a first parameter value and, wherein the at least one threshold value comprises a first predetermined threshold value and a second predetermined threshold value (see citations as follows), and the at least one remediation comprises: a first remediation performed in response to determining that the first parameter value exceeds the first predetermined threshold value (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, step S12); and a second remediation performed in response to determining that the second parameter value exceeds the second predetermined threshold value, the second remediation being a different type than that of the first remediation (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, step S5), wherein the first predetermined threshold value comprises a first value representing a threshold amount of NH3 within the gas in the drying region and the first remediation comprises increasing a concentration of N2 in the drying region (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, step S12), and wherein the second predetermined threshold value comprises a second value representing a threshold amount of a volatile organic compound (VOC) within the gas in the drying region and the second remediation comprises introducing the solvent as a vapor into the drying region (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, step S5).
Modified Kimura does not appear to teach a second parameter value being different in type from the first parameter value.
However, Mehmandoust teaches applying a temperature sensor for monitoring the gas temperature to control heating of the gas and humidity sensor to monitor relative humidity and control exhaust (see Mehmandoust’s Figures 13-15, temperature sensor 350, humidity sensor 356. [0072]-[0074]). Examiner notes that Kimura already discloses in-line heater for the vapor and inert gas, as well as exhaust (see Kimura’s Figure 1, in-line heaters 40 & 50, vacuum pump 52, gas-liquid separator 61, controller 67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kimura apparatus by applying temperature and humidity sensors similar to Mehmandoust in order to predictably allow monitoring/control of the vapor and/or gas temperatures and control the in-heaters thereof, and allow monitoring of the humidity level and control of the exhaust (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura teaches wherein the first and second remediations each further comprise increasing a temperature in the drying region (see Kimura’s Figure 1, in-line heaters 40 & 50. [0035], [0037]). Kimura teaches heating the solvent/IPA and inert gas via in-line heaters, such that Examiner considers one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the heated solvent/IPA and heat inert gas to heat the chamber 27.
Additionally, Examiner notes that Kimura teaches heating the inert gas using in-line heater 50 to a predetermined temperature, such that tampering with this temperature to be a higher value would be the result of routine experimentation/optimization (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. 2009/0084405), Bergman (US Patent 6,286,231), Konishi (US Patent 6,145,519), and Mehmandoust (US Pub. 2001/0047595), as applied to claims 7-8 above, further in view of Otsuji (US Pub. 2018/0204743).
The limitations of claims 7-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kimura does not appear to teach the third remediation, wherein the at least one threshold value comprises a third predetermined threshold value, wherein the at least one remediation further comprises: a third remediation performed in response to determining that a third parameter value exceeds the third predetermined threshold value, the third predetermined threshold value being a different type than that of the first and second predetermined threshold values, and wherein the third remediation comprising replacing the gas within the drying region with clean dry air (Kimura teaches applying inert nitrogen gas rather than air).
Examiner however, considers using heated clean dry air as conventional in the substrate processing arts and refers to Otsuji, who teaches using Marangoni convection and use of nitrogen as an inert drying gas, as well as using clean dry air as an alternative to nitrogen gas (see Otsuji’s Figures 13-14. [0013]-[0015], [0113], [0161][0166]).
Using clean dry air as replacement or in combination of Kimura’s heated inert gas for drying would yield a predictable variation thereof (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura teaches wherein the third remediation further comprises replacing the tank solution in the tank region with water and replacing the layer of solvent with a new solvent (see Kimura’s Figure 5, S5, S9. [0045], [0058], [0062]). Regarding replacing the tank solution with water, Kimura teaches supplying and draining deionized water to/from treating tank 1 per [0045]. Regarding replacing the layer of solvent with new solvent, Kimura teaches supplying solvent and decompression/exhausting the gas in S5 & S9, respectively. Examiner considers one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the decompression/exhaust during on-going solvent vapor supply to remove at least some of the solvent vapor and replacing with fresh solvent.
Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. 2009/0084405), Bergman (US Patent 6,286,231), and Mehmandoust (US Pub. 2001/0047595), with Konishi (US Patent 6,145,519) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 11, Kimura teaches a cleaning chamber, comprising: a tank region configured to accommodate a tank solution (see Figures 1 & 4, treating tank 1, step S1. [0054]); a drying region configured to accommodate a gas (see Figures 1 & 4, lifter 31, inert gas nozzles 34. refer to upper region where lifter 31 is raised. [0060]); a solvent region configured to provide a solvent between the tank region and the drying region to separate the tank solution and the gas, wherein the solvent region comprises a layer of solvent, at least one sensor configured to determine at least one parameter value associated with the gas within the drying region (see Figures 1 & 4, concentration measuring unit 66, step S8. [0041], [0060]-[0062]); and a control system configured to (see Figures 1 & 4, controller 67. [0043]): move a wafer out of the tank solution and into the drying region (see Figures 1 & 4, steps S1, S6. [0004], [0055]-[0060]); and perform at least one remediation within the cleaning chamber in response to a determination that the at least one parameter value exceeds at least one threshold value (see Figures 1 & 4, steps S5, S9-S12).
Kimura does not explicitly teach wherein the solvent region comprises, at a top surface of the tank solution, a solvent-enriched liquid layer that is a portion of the tank solution at the top surface having a higher concentration of the solvent than a remainder of the tank solution, the solvent-enriched liquid layer being disposed below a bottom surface of the drying region.
However, the Examiner regards the limitation above as an inherent feature of Kimura due to the nature of the process chemicals used therein. Kimura describes providing a solvent vapor supply for isopropyl alcohol ([0004], “IPA”) in addition to a deionized water bath ([0005]) and nitrogen gas ([0037]).
The Examiner notes isopropyl alcohol, water, and nitrogen gas are the same process chemicals used in the instant application (par. [0025] of the instant PG-Pub).
In accordance, a PHOSITA would expect the same nitrogen/IPA/water layers as claimed to be present in the Kimura apparatus despite not being explicitly described.
As further evidence of inherency, the Examiner submits Konishi as evidence of the layering effect in a similar process and apparatus (see Konishi C5, L32-43 and Fig. 1c).
Kimura does not teach a solvent output interface having an intake portal interfacing a water line of the solvent-enriched liquid layer, and a solvent drain fluidly downstream of the solvent output interface.
However, Bergman teaches the above limitation (Bergman – and Fig. 2, moveable drain #54 with drain throttle valve #80 to a drain; described as extracting from just below the liquid-gas interface which would put it in the claimed position of Kimura).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kimura apparatus to comprise the moveable drain of Bergman in order to withdraw liquid while maintaining the surface tension gradient along the gas-liquid interface and to prevent gas from escaping before dissolving into the liquid (Bergman – C5, L48-58).
Modified Kimura does not teach performing a second remediation in response to determining that the second parameter value exceeds a second predetermined threshold value, the second remediation being different than the first remediation.
However, Mehmandoust teaches applying a temperature sensor for monitoring the gas temperature to control heating of the gas and humidity sensor to monitor relative humidity and control exhaust (see Mehmandoust’s Figures 13-15, temperature sensor 350, humidity sensor 356. [0072]-[0074]). Examiner notes that Kimura already discloses in-line heater for the vapor and inert gas, as well as exhaust (see Kimura’s Figure 1, in-line heaters 40 & 50, vacuum pump 52, gas-liquid separator 61, controller 67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kimura apparatus by applying temperature and humidity sensors similar to Mehmandoust in order to predictably allow monitoring/control of the vapor and/or gas temperatures and control the in-heaters thereof, and allow monitoring of the humidity level and control of the exhaust (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Regarding claim 12, wherein: the first predetermined threshold value comprises a first value representing a threshold amount of NH3 within the gas in the drying region and the first remediation comprises increasing a concentration of N2 in the drying region (refer to claim 7 rejection), and the second predetermined threshold value comprises a second value representing a threshold amount of a volatile organic compound (VOC) within the gas in the drying region and the second remediation comprises introducing the solvent as a vapor into the drying region (refer to claim 7 rejection).
Regarding claim 13, Kimura teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed in the drying region (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, concentration measuring unit 66).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura teaches a cleaning chamber, comprising: a tank region configured to accommodate a tank solution (see Figures 1 & 4, treating tank 1, step S1. [0054]); a drying region configured to accommodate a gas (see Figures 1 & 4, lifter 31, inert gas nozzles 34. refer to upper region where lifter 31 is raised. [0060]); a solvent region configured to provide a solvent between the tank region and the drying region to separate the tank solution and the gas, wherein the solvent region comprises a layer of solvent, at least one sensor configured to determine at least one parameter value associated with the gas within the drying region (see Figures 1 & 4, concentration measuring unit 66, step S8. [0041], [0060]-[0062]); and a control system configured to (see Figures 1 & 4, controller 67. [0043]): move a wafer out of the tank solution and into the drying region (see Figures 1 & 4, steps S1, S6. [0004], [0055]-[0060]); and perform at least one remediation within the cleaning chamber in response to a determination that the at least one parameter value exceeds at least one threshold value (see Figures 1 & 4, steps S5, S9-S12), and perform a third remediation in response to determining that the third parameter value exceeds a third predetermined threshold value, the third predetermined threshold value being a different type than that of the first and second predetermined threshold values (see Kimura’s Figure 4, step S9).
Kimura does not explicitly teach wherein the solvent region comprises, at a top surface of the tank solution, a solvent-enriched liquid layer that is a portion of the tank solution at the top surface having a higher concentration of the solvent than a remainder of the tank solution, the solvent-enriched liquid layer being disposed below a bottom surface of the drying region.
However, the Examiner regards the limitation above as an inherent feature of Kimura due to the nature of the process chemicals used therein. Kimura describes providing a solvent vapor supply for isopropyl alcohol ([0004], “IPA”) in addition to a deionized water bath ([0005]) and nitrogen gas ([0037]).
The Examiner notes isopropyl alcohol, water, and nitrogen gas are the same process chemicals used in the instant application (par. [0025] of the instant PG-Pub).
In accordance, a PHOSITA would expect the same nitrogen/IPA/water layers as claimed to be present in the Kimura apparatus despite not being explicitly described.
As further evidence of inherency, the Examiner submits Konishi as evidence of the layering effect in a similar process and apparatus (see Konishi C5, L32-43 and Fig. 1c).
Kimura does not teach a solvent output interface having an intake portal interfacing a water line of the solvent-enriched liquid layer, and a solvent drain fluidly downstream of the solvent output interface.
However, Bergman teaches the above limitation (Bergman – and Fig. 2, moveable drain #54 with drain throttle valve #80 to a drain; described as extracting from just below the liquid-gas interface which would put it in the claimed position of Kimura).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kimura apparatus to comprise the moveable drain of Bergman in order to withdraw liquid while maintaining the surface tension gradient along the gas-liquid interface and to prevent gas from escaping before dissolving into the liquid (Bergman – C5, L48-58).
Modified Kimura does not teach performing a second remediation in response to determining that the second parameter value exceeds a second predetermined threshold value, the second remediation being different than the first remediation.
However, Mehmandoust teaches applying a temperature sensor for monitoring the gas temperature to control heating of the gas and humidity sensor to monitor relative humidity and control exhaust (see Mehmandoust’s Figures 13-15, temperature sensor 350, humidity sensor 356. [0072]-[0074]). Examiner notes that Kimura already discloses in-line heater for the vapor and inert gas, as well as exhaust (see Kimura’s Figure 1, in-line heaters 40 & 50, vacuum pump 52, gas-liquid separator 61, controller 67).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Kimura apparatus by applying temperature and humidity sensors similar to Mehmandoust in order to predictably allow monitoring/control of the vapor and/or gas temperatures and control the in-heaters thereof, and allow monitoring of the humidity level and control of the exhaust (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Thus the limitation “wherein the third remediation is different from the first and second remediations” is met by the combination of references above.
Regarding claim 17, wherein: the first predetermined threshold value comprises a first value representing a threshold amount of NH3 within the gas in the drying region and the first remediation comprises increasing a concentration of N2 in the drying region (refer to claim 7 rejection), and the second predetermined threshold value comprises a second value representing a threshold amount of a volatile organic compound (VOC) within the gas in the drying region and the second remediation comprises introducing the solvent as a vapor into the drying region (refer to claim 7 rejection), the third predetermined threshold value being a different type than that of the first and second predetermined threshold values (refer to Examiner’s Comment). The predetermined threshold values are not positively claimed, and the third remediation comprises replacing the solvent with a new solvent, immersing the wafer in the tank solution, and retrieving the wafer from the tank solution (see Kimura’s Figure 4, step S1, S6, S9. [0062]). Examiner considers decompression during S9 would result in solvent vapor being supplied while being exhausted. Examiner considers the immersing and retrieving are performed during S1 & S6.
Regarding Kimura’s S6 also reading on the “move a wafer out” step and the third remediation’s “retrieving”, Examiner considers this to be overlapping and does not appear exclusive, but if further argued, Examiner refers directly below to duplication of parts.
If argued regarding Kimura’s S6 reading on the third remediation, Examiner however, considers this would be an obvious repetition/duplication of parts of Kimura’s method in Figure 4 (see MPEP 2144.04, “Duplication of Parts”). One of ordinary skill in the art would consider performing a second iteration of Kimura’s Figure 4 methodology for enhanced/supplemental cleaning effect. The second iteration would involve another immersing and retrieving of the wafer (see Kimura’s Figure 4, steps S1 & S6).
Regarding claim 18, Kimura teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed in the drying region (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, concentration measuring unit 66).
Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. 2009/0084405), Bergman (US Patent 6,286,231), Mehmandoust (US Pub. 2001/0047595), and Konishi (US Patent 6,145,519), as applied to claims 11-13 and 16-18 above, further in view of Yang (US Pub. 2004/0194806).
The limitations of claims 11-13 and 16-18 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kimura does not teach a collector connected to the drying region, wherein the collector is configured to collect the gas in the drying region.
Yang however, teaches using a side vapor conduit to admit IPA vapor to a concentration sensor (see Yang’s Figure 2, substrate cleaning tank 38, IPA concentration detector 56, IPA vapor conduit 57. [0006]-[0007], [0028]).
Modifying Kimura’s concentration measuring unit 66 to be admitted IPA vapor/atmosphere similar to how Yang is using IPA vapor conduit 57 to admit IPA vapor to concentration detector 56 would yield a predictable variation of Kimura (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”). Examiner considers that the housing of Yang’s concentration detector 56 functions as a collector, as the housing would collect vapor/gas within for detection from the IPA vapor conduit 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kimura and more particularly to have a vapor conduit lead to concentration measuring unit 66 because said modification is conventional in the art in view of Yang and would yield a predictable variation of Kimura still resulting in the solvent/IPA concentration being measured.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kimura does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Yang teaches wherein the at least one sensor is disposed in the collector (refer to claim 3 rejection regarding housing being the collector).
Modifying Kimura’s concentration measuring unit 66 to be admitted IPA vapor/atmosphere similar to how Yang is using IPA vapor conduit 57 to admit IPA vapor to concentration detector 56 would yield a predictable variation of Kimura (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”). Examiner considers that the housing of Yang’s concentration detector 56 functions as a collector, as the housing would collect vapor/gas within for detection from the IPA vapor conduit 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kimura and more particularly to have a vapor conduit lead to concentration measuring unit 66 because said modification is conventional in the art in view of Yang and would yield a predictable variation of Kimura still resulting in the solvent/IPA concentration being measured.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kimura does not teach a collector connected to the drying region, wherein the collector is configured to collect the gas in the drying region.
Yang however, teaches using a side vapor conduit to admit IPA vapor to a concentration sensor (see Yang’s Figure 2, substrate cleaning tank 38, IPA concentration detector 56, IPA vapor conduit 57. [0006]-[0007], [0028]).
Modifying Kimura’s concentration measuring unit 66 to be admitted IPA vapor/atmosphere similar to how Yang is using IPA vapor conduit 57 to admit IPA vapor to concentration detector 56 would yield a predictable variation of Kimura (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”). Examiner considers that the housing of Yang’s concentration detector 56 functions as a collector, as the housing would collect vapor/gas within for detection from the IPA vapor conduit 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kimura and more particularly to have a vapor conduit lead to concentration measuring unit 66 because said modification is conventional in the art in view of Yang and would yield a predictable variation of Kimura still resulting in the solvent/IPA concentration being measured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous §112(a) rejections, which are withdrawn.
In light of the most recent amendments, the previous ODP rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the previous §103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner respectfully submits that Bergman and Konishi remedy any alleged deficiencies of the other prior art of record.
For completeness, the Examiner notes Applicant’s stated criticality of the intake portal positioning (Remarks, pg. 9) does not appear to be come from the instant disclosure. If this is incorrect, Applicant is encouraged to provide specific citations supporting these assertions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights