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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 15, 17, 19, 21, 28, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebstock (US 2016/0296983) in view of Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1) and Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Kitajima et al. (US 2012/0048304 A1).
Rebstock discloses a method of drying one or more wafers, comprising: dispensing, in a wafer drying station 210, 1000, a drying gas 220, 1080 vertically towards one or more wafers 217 (Figs. 2A, 2B, 10) to remove a contaminant away from the surface of the wafer, wherein the contaminant comprises airborne molecules (Fig. 2A, 2B, 10, paragraphs [0004], [0005]); exhausting, via the exhaust line (not numbered, Figs. 2A, 2B, 10), the drying gas 230 from the drying station 210, 1000; collecting the drying gas to determine a real time concentration of the contaminant in the drying gas (by sensor 270, 1070, paragraphs [0034], [0069]); and control a feedback operation of the wafer drying station based on the real time concentration of the contaminant in the drying gas (by switch mechanism 260, 1060, Figs. 2B, 10, paragraphs [0034], [0 0069]); analyzing the drying gas to determine a concentration of a plurality of types of contaminants in the drying gas (by sensors 270, 1070, paragraphs [0004], [0034], [0069]) and performing a comparison between the concentration of the plurality of types of contaminants in the drying gas and a baseline reference (paragraph [0034] [0069] discloses an acceptable level, the acceptable level is considered as a baseline reference). Wherein the drying gas comprises a clean dry air (paragraph [0008]). However, Rebstock does not disclose diverting the drying gas to a first portion to an exhaust line and a second portion to a detector; collecting with the detector a predetermined volume of second portion of the drying gas to determine a real time concentration of the contaminant in the second portion of the drying gas; and controlling a feedback operation of the wafer drying station based on the real time concentration of the contaminant in the second portion of the drying gas. Rebstock also does not disclose in response to the concentration being greater than the baseline value, rinsing the one or more wafers with deionized water to remove the plurality of types of contaminants away from the surface of the wafer and drying the one or more wafers. Rebstock further does not disclose the drying gas is a clean dry air comprises less than about 1 part per million carbon dioxide, or less than about 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor. Andrews et al. teach diverting the exhaust gas to a first portion (Fig. 2, via valve 74, within 52) to an exhaust line 52 and a predetermined volume of second portion (Fig. 2, within 70, paragraph [0024], volume of second portion is predetermined by the size of conduit 70) to a detector 80 (Fig.2). An exhaust line 52 configured to exhaust the first portion of the exhaust gas and a detector 80 configured to receive the second portion of the exhaust gas and to determine content of the second portion of the exhaust gas. Ciari discloses in response to the concentration being greater than the baseline value, rinsing the one or more wafers with deionized water to remove the plurality of types of contaminants away from the surface of the wafer and drying the one or more wafers (col. 8, line 33 to col. 9, line 36). Kitajima et al. teaches a concept of dispensing, in a wafer drying station 100, clean dry air vertically towards one or more wafers W (Figs. 4, 7, via pipeline 116) to remove a contaminant away from the surfaces of the one or more wafers W (Figs. 4, 7), the clean dry comprises less than about 1 part per million carbon dioxide (paragraph [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wafer drying method of Rebstock to include steps of diverting a first portion of the drying air to an exhaust line and a predetermined volume of second portion of the drying air to a detector as taught by Andrews et al. in order to allow exhaust gas to flow past the detector when the measurement is desired to prevent the detector from prolonged exposure to the exhaust gas and provide a long-term durability and reliability of the detector and, accordingly, the accuracy of the measurement and to further modify the wafer drying method of Rebstock to include in response to the concentration being greater than the baseline value, rinsing the one or more wafers with deionized water to remove the plurality of types of contaminants away from the surface of the wafer and drying the one or more wafers as taught by Ciari in order to further clean and dry the wafer and to use clean dry air comprising less than about 1 part per million carbon dioxide to dry substrate as taught by Kitajima et al. in order to effectively drying the substrate.
With regard to claims 5, 19, 28, Rebstock discloses the contamination comprises volatile organic compounds, amines, inorganic acids, acetone, sulfur dioxide, isopropyl alcohol, water vapors, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0005]). For claims 21, 31, Rebstock discloses dispensing the drying gas comprises dispensing the drying gas towards surfaces of the one or more wafers (Figs. 2, 10) at a predetermined rate (dispensing rate is predetermined by the size of dispensing nozzle and switch mechanism 260, 1060). Kitajima et al. also discloses dispensing the drying gas comprises dispensing the drying gas towards surfaces of the one or more wafers W (Figs. 4, 7) at a predetermined rate (dispensing rate is predetermined by the opening degree of valves 117, 118).
Claims 4 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebstock (US 2016/0296983) in view of Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1) and Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Kitajima et al. (US 2012/0048304 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 as above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2015/0206780).
The drying method of Rebstock as modified by Andrews et al. and Ciari and Kitajima et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 4, 26 except for further comprising: in response to the concentration being equal to or less than the base line value, removing the one or more wafers from the wafer drying station. Choi et al. discloses in response to the concentration being equal to or less than a baseline value, removing the one or more wafers from the wafer drying station 200 (paragraph [0048] disclose when the humidity is less than a permissible level, the wafer may be removed from the wafer storage apparatus 200 by robot 102 to prevent contamination of the wafer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the drying method of Rebstock to include in response to the concentration being equal to or less than the base line value, removing the one or more wafers from the wafer drying station as taught by Choi et al. in order to prevent contamination of the wafer.
Claims 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebstock (US 2016/0296983) in view of Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1) and Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Kitajima et al. (US 2012/0048304 A1) as applied to claims 1, 15 as above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0043379 A1).
The method or Rebstock as modified by Andrews et al. and Ciari and Kitajima et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 16, 29 except for dispensing the drying gas while spinning the wafer. Sasaki et al. discloses a substrate drying method comprising dispensing the drying gas while spinning the wafer (paragraphs [0174]-[0176]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the drying method of Rebstock to include dispensing the drying gas while spinning the wafer as taught by Sasaki et al. in order to uniformly dry the wafer and improve drying efficiency.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebstock (US 2016/0296983) in view of Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1) and Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Kitajima et al. (US 2012/0048304 A1) as applied to claim 15 as above, and further in view of Ohmi et al. (US 2005/0109419 a1)).
For claim 18, Rebstock further discloses the contaminant initially on the top surface of the wafer is carried away by the portion of the drying gas. The drying method of Rebstock as modified by Andrews et al. and Ciari and Kitajima et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 18 except for chemically identifying a type of contaminant in the portion of the drying gas. Ohmi et al. teaches a concept of chemically identifying a type of contaminant in the gas 15 exhausted from the semiconductor processes (paragraphs [0020], [0032], by detector 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the drying method of Rebstock to include a step of chemically identifying a type of contaminant in the portion of the drying gas as taught by Ohmi et al. in order to enable a proper treatment to the exhaust gas based on the chemical type to improve safety.
Claims 9, 12-14, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebstock (US 2016/0296983) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0043379 A1) and Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Kitajima et al. (US 2012/0048304 A1).
Rebstock discloses a method comprising: dispensing a drying gas 220 towards a surface of a wafer (Figs. 2, 10) to remove airborne molecular contaminants away from the surface of the wafer (paragraphs [0004], [0005]), analyzing the drying gas to determine a concentration of a contaminant in the drying gas (paragraph [0034], [0069]), performing a rework/dry operation on the wafer in response to the concentration of the contaminant being greater than the baseline (paragraph [0034], [0069] discloses supply dry gas to the substrates when the moisture level exceeds the acceptable level, i.e. baseline value), sampling the drying gas while dispensing the drying gas over the wafer (Figs. 2B, 10, sampling is performed by the sensor 270, 1070). Wherein the inert gas comprises nitrogen, argon, or helium (paragraph [0008] discloses nitrogen). However, Rebstock does not disclose dispensing the drying gas vertically towards central region of the surface of the wafer. Rebstock also does not disclose rinsing the wafer with deionized water and dispensing an inert gas over the wafer after rinsing the wafer. Rebstock further does not disclose the drying gas is a clean dry air comprises less than about 1 part per million carbon dioxide, or less than about 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor. Sasaki et al. discloses dispensing the drying gas 603, 607 vertically towards central region of surface of the wafer (Fig. 4). Ciari discloses rinsing the one or more wafers 22 with deionized water (col. 8, line 33 to col. 9, line 5) and dispensing an inert gas over the wafer after rinsing the wafer to dry the one or more wafers (col. 9, lines 20-30). Kitajima et al. teaches a concept of dispensing, in a wafer drying station 100, clean dry air vertically towards one or more wafers W (Figs. 4, 7, via pipeline 116) to remove a contaminant away from the surfaces of the one or more wafers W (Figs. 4, 7), the clean dry comprises less than about 1 part per million carbon dioxide (paragraph [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying method of Rebstock to include a step of dispensing the drying gas vertically towards central region of surface of the wafer as taught by Sasaki et al. in order to efficiently remove the contaminants from the wafer surface and to further modify the wafer drying method of Rebstock to include a step of rinsing the wafer with deionized water and dispensing an inert gas over the wafer after rinsing the wafer as taught by Ciari in order to further clean and dry the wafer and to use clean dry air comprising less than about 1 part per million carbon dioxide to dry substrate as taught by Kitajima et al. in order to effectively drying the substrate.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebstock (US 2016/0296983) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0043379 A1) and Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Kitajima et al. (US 2012/0048304 A1) as applied to claim 9 as above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2015/0206780).
The drying method of Rebstock as modified by Sasaki et al. and Ciari and Kitajima et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 24 except for further comprising: in response to the concentration being equal to or less than the base line value, removing the one or more wafers from the wafer drying station. Choi et al. discloses in response to the concentration being equal to or less than a baseline value, removing the one or more wafers from the wafer drying station 200 (paragraph [0048] disclose when the humidity is less than a permissible level, the wafer may be removed from the wafer storage apparatus 200 by robot 102 to prevent contamination of the wafer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the drying method of Rebstock to include in response to the concentration being equal to or less than the base line value, removing the one or more wafers from the wafer drying station as taught by Choi et al. in order to prevent contamination of the wafer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,4-5,9,12-19,21,24-26 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY