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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection of claims 1, 11, & 16 under modified Kimura have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kimura teaches a solvent vapor atmosphere and would not teach the amended limitations pertaining to the solvent liquid layer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner however, considers one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that due to the references teaching what appears to be similar if not identical configurations (e.g. IPA as the solvent, water as the liquid bath), the expectation would be the same phenomenon and resulting formation of a “liquid layer” or liquid meniscus due to the absorbance of the solvent/IPA at the water surface interface. Examiner requires further argument/evidence. Examiner has also applied a 112(a) rejection regarding distinguishing the solvent liquid layer from the tank solution.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 regarding the previous ODP rejections of claims 1, 11, & 16 (see FP #75-76 of nonfinal action dated 6/4/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amendment to claims 1, 11, & 16 obviate the ODP rejections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner considers Kimura to still account for the amended limitations (refer to response to argument regarding the 103 rejections under modified Kimura above) and maintains the ODP rejections.
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding claim interpretation, Examiner considers the parameter value(s) associated with the sensor to be positively recited, while the threshold value(s) associated with the determination(s) are not positively recited.
Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejections. Examiner notes that:
1) the application is a child of but not a direct divisional of parent 16/547428 (now US 11923210), and
2) the application is a divisional of parent application 17/874103 (now US 12080567), but the claims are not consonant in scope with the restriction requirement (see MPEP 804.01, refer to exception (B)). Applicant’s claims 1, 11, & 16 require a solvent region but not a solvent drain, which withdrawn claim 1 of the divisional application required. In order for consonance to exist, the line of demarcation between the independent and distinct inventions identified by the examiner in the requirement for restriction must be maintained. 916 F.2d at 688, 16 USPQ2d at 1440.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19, & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, & 16 recite “wherein in a cross-sectional view, the layer of solvent is a liquid layer contacting the top surface of the tank solution”. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure (see Applicant’s Figure 1, liquid 112, solvent 114. [0016], [0025]-[0026], [0032], [0044]). Examiner has identified support for a solvent layer, as well as the absorbance of solvent into a liquid meniscus. Examiner however, is not clear how the meniscus would be distinct from the tank solution. Wouldn’t the meniscus form a part of the tank solution rather than a distinct layer contacting the top surface thereof? While Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s disclosure compares the liquid meniscus with “the rest of the liquid”, Examiner does not consider this as necessarily distinguishing the meniscus from the entirety of the tank solution (e.g. this can be considered as establishing two portions of the tank solution). Applicant must either clarify or amend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, 16-18, & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 20090084405, “Kimura”) in view of Mehmandoust (US 20010047595).
Kimura teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
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, wherein the layer of solvent is disposed on a top surface of the tank solution and below a bottom surface of the drying region, wherein in a cross-sectional view, the layer of solvent is a liquid layer contacting the top surface of the tank solution (see Figures 1 & 4, solvent nozzles 33. Step S5. refer to region above treating tank 1). If argued regarding “configured to provide a solvent”, Examiner refers to Mehmandoust below;
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).
If argued regarding the solvent region and whether “configured to provide a solvent” were to require a particular positioning of any solvent feed, Examiner considers Mehmandoust to teach placing solvent nozzles at the interface with the bath to promote wettability of the substrate and promote removal of the fluid when the substrate is removed from the fluid (see Mehmandoust’s Figure 13, chamber 144, bath 194, organic compound delivery manifold 410. [0017], [0043]).
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 rearrange solvent nozzles 33 to be at the interface with treating tank 1 because such modification is an obvious rearrangement of parts in view of Mehmandoust resulting in promoting wettability of the substrate and removal of the fluid when the substrate is removed from the fluid in the treating tank 1.
Regarding the layer of solvent being “below a bottom surface of the drying region”, Examiner considers this would be the obvious act of making separable of Kimura’s chamber 27 (see MPEP 2144.04, “Making Separable”). Examiner again refers to Mehmandoust who teaches applying the solvent nozzles below a bottom surface of an upper drying region/chamber, which appears to be separated from a lower bath/immersion region (see Mehmandoust’s Figures 3 & 13, chamber 144, bath 194, fluid outlet tank 212, organic compound delivery manifold 410). Separating Kimura’s chamber 27 to have a distinctive upper drying region/chamber from a lower bath/immersion region similar to Mehmandoust’s separation of chamber 144 from bath 194/fluid outlet 212 with organic compound delivery manifold 410 applying the solvent therebetween would yield a predictable variation thereof and read on the claimed limitation.
Modified Kimura also teaches the following:
For Claim 2:
The cleaning chamber of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is disposed in the drying region (see Kimura’s Figures 1 & 4, concentration measuring unit 66).
For Claim 5:
The cleaning chamber of claim 1, wherein the drying region is above the tank region (refer to claim 1 interpretation).
For Claim 6:
The cleaning chamber of claim 1, wherein the drying region is separated from the tank region (refer to claim 1 interpretations. refer to modification by Mehmandoust).
Modified Kimura teaches the following of claim 7 except where underlined:
For Claim 7:
The cleaning chamber of claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter value comprises a first parameter value and a second parameter value being different in type from the first parameter value, wherein the at least one threshold value comprises a first predetermined threshold value and a second predetermined threshold value, 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).
Regarding using sensor(s) detecting other parameters, Examiner refers to Mehmandoust, who 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). Applying temperature and humidity sensors to Kimura would 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”).
For Claim 8:
The cleaning chamber of claim 7, 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”).
Examiner considers claim 11 to be rejected under the same basis as claims 1 & 7:
For Claim 11:
A cleaning chamber, comprising:
a tank region configured to accommodate a tank solution (refer to claim 1 rejection);
a drying region configured to accommodate a gas (refer to claim 1 rejection);
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, wherein the layer of solvent is disposed on a top surface of the tank solution and below a bottom surface of the drying region, wherein in a cross-sectional view, the layer of solvent is a liquid layer contacting the top surface of the tank solution (refer to claim 1 rejection);
a plurality of sensors configured to determine a first parameter value and a second parameter value each associated with the gas within the drying region (refer to claim 1 rejection); and
a control system configured to (refer to claim 1 rejection):
move a wafer out of the tank solution and into the drying region (refer to claim 1 rejection); and
perform a first remediation in response to determining that the first parameter value exceeds a first predetermined threshold value (refer to claim 7 rejection); and
perform 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 (refer to claim 7 rejection).
For Claim 12:
The cleaning chamber of claim 11, 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).
For Claim 13:
The cleaning chamber of claim 11, wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed in the drying region (refer to claim 2 rejection).
For Claim 16:
A cleaning chamber, comprising:
a tank region configured to accommodate a tank solution (refer to claim 1 rejection);
a drying region configured to accommodate a gas (refer to claim 1 rejection);
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, wherein the layer of solvent is disposed on a top surface of the tank solution and below a bottom surface of the drying region, wherein in a cross-sectional view, the layer of solvent is a liquid layer contacting the top surface of the tank solution (refer to claim 1 rejection);
a plurality of sensors configured to determine a first parameter value, a second parameter value and a third parameter value each associated with the gas within the drying region (refer to claim 7 rejection. refer to humidity and temperature as other parameters); and
a control system configured to (refer to claim 1 rejection):
move a wafer out of the tank solution and into the drying region (refer to claim 1 rejection);
perform a first remediation in response to determining that the first parameter value exceeds a first predetermined threshold value (refer to claim 7 rejection);
perform 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 (refer to claim 7 rejection); 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), and
wherein the third remediation is different from the first and second remediations (see directly above).
Modified Kimura teaches claim 16.
Modified Kimura teaches the following of claim 17 except where underlined:
For Claim 17:
The cleaning chamber of claim 16, 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).
Modified Kimura also teaches the following:
For Claim 18:
The cleaning chamber of claim 16, wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed in the drying region (refer to claim 2 rejection).
For Claim 21:
The cleaning chamber of claim 1, further comprising a solvent drain configured to drain a portion of the liquid layer contacting the top surface of the tank solution (see Kimura’s Figure 1, exhaust valve 21, exhaust pipe 51, vacuum pump 52, drain pipe 63, drain valve 65). Examiner considers either Kimura’s exhaust arrangement (exhaust valve 21, exhaust pipe 51, vacuum pipe 52) and/or drain arrangement (drain pipe 63, drain valve 65) would be capable of draining a solvent/IPA liquid layer.
Claim(s) 3-4, 14-15, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 20090084405, “Kimura”) in view of Mehmandoust (US 20010047595) as applied to claims 1, 11, & 16 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20040194806, “Yang”).
Modified Kimura teaches claim 1.
Modified Kimura does not appear to teach the following:
For Claim 3:
The cleaning chamber of claim 1, further comprising 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.
For Claim 4:
The cleaning chamber of claim 3, wherein the at least one sensor is disposed in the collector (refer to claim 3 rejection regarding housing being the collector).
For Claim 14:
The cleaning chamber of claim 11, further comprising a collector connected to the drying region, wherein the collector is configured to collect the gas in the drying region (refer to claim 3 rejection).
For Claim 15:
The cleaning chamber of claim 14, wherein the plurality of sensors are disposed in the collector (refer to claim 4 rejection).
For Claim 19:
The cleaning chamber of claim 16, further comprising a collector connected to the drying region, wherein the collector is configured to collect the gas in the drying region (refer to claim 3 rejection).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 20090084405, “Kimura”) in view of Mehmandoust (US 20010047595) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Otsuji et al. (US 20180204743, “Otsuji”)
Modified Kimura teaches claim 7.
Modified Kimura does not appear to teach the third remediation of claim 9:
For Claim 9:
The cleaning chamber of claim 7, 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 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”).
Modified Kimura also teaches the following:
For Claim 10:
The cleaning chamber of claim 9, 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19, & 21 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11923210 in view of Kimura et al. (US 20090084405, “Kimura”), Mehmandoust (US 20010047595), and Yang et al. (US 20040194806, “Yang”). Examiner refers to the Examiner’s Comment. Examiner considers claims 1-20 of the parent patent to largely disclose the claimed invention, particularly the various regions, as well as the control system configurations pertaining to the remediations and thresholds. The exception appears to be the layer of solvent positioning particulars and sensor particulars. Regarding the layer of solvent, Examiner considers Kimura and Mehmandoust to teach this positioning arrangement (refer to claim 1 rejection). Regarding the recitation of the sensor, Kimura and/or Mehmandoust account for the sensor(s) and various parameter values (see rejections above regarding Kimura teaching a concentration sensor and Mehmandoust teaching temperature and humidity sensors. Examiner also refers to Yang pertaining to collector teachings.
Claims 1-19, & 21 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12080567 in view of Kimura et al. (US 20090084405, “Kimura”), Mehmandoust (US 20010047595), and Yang et al. (US 20040194806, “Yang”). Examiner refers to the Examiner’s Comment. Examiner considers claims 1-20 of the parent patent to largely disclose the claimed invention, particularly the various regions, as well as the control system configurations pertaining to the remediations and thresholds. The exception appears to be the layer of solvent positioning particulars, sensor particulars and moving of the wafer. Regarding the layer of solvent, Examiner considers Kimura and Mehmandoust to teach this positioning arrangement (refer to claim 1 rejection). Regarding the recitation of the sensor, Kimura and/or Mehmandoust account for the sensor(s) and various parameter values (see rejections above regarding Kimura teaching a concentration sensor and Mehmandoust teaching temperature and humidity sensors. Regarding the moving of the wafer, Kimura teaches this (see rejections above regarding Kimura teaching moving the wafer in S6 to drying position). Examiner also refers to Yang pertaining to collector teachings.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin 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 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights