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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 is indefinite because a Markush-type grouping of alternatives is being set forth in the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. However, a list of alternatives recited in claim 5 is open- ended due to the use of "comprise" in the language. Since the claimed list of alternatives is open-ended, the metes and bounds of the claim is accordingly indeterminate as it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be part of the claim scope.
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, 21, 28, 30 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), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 A1).
Rebstock discloses a method of drying one or more wafers, comprising: dispensing, in a wafer drying station 210, 1000, a drying air 220, 1080 vertically towards one or more wafers 217 (Figs. 2A, 2B, 10), interacting the clean dry air with surfaces of the one or more wafers 217, thereby removing a contaminant away from the surfaces of the one or more wafers 217 and integrating the contaminant with the clean dry air, wherein the contaminant comprises airborne molecules (paragraphs [0005], [0010]); 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 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 concentration of the contaminant in the drying gas (by switch mechanism 260, 1060, Figs. 2B, 10, paragraphs [0034], [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, the second portion of the clean dry air; measuring, with an analyzer, a concentration of the contaminant in real time based on the contaminant in the second portion of the clean dry air; 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 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. Chuang et al. discloses measuring, with an analyzer 300, a contaminant in real time (paragraph [0033]). 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). Spiegelman et al. discloses removal of airborne molecular contaminants using a clean dry air comprising less than 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor (paragraph [0038]). 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; and to measure the contaminant in real time as taught by Andrews et al. and Chuang et al. respectively 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 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor to dry substrate as taught by Spiegelman et al. in order to eliminate contaminants and ensure consistent reliable drying outcomes.
With regard to claims 5, 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, 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). Chuang et al. also discloses dispensing the drying gas comprises dispensing the drying gas towards surfaces of the one or more wafers 400 (Fig. 1) at a predetermined rate (dispensing rate is predetermined by the opening size of vent inlet 130, Fig. 1).
Claim 4 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), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 A1) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2015/0206780).
The drying method of Rebstock as modified by Andrews et al., Chuang et al., Ciari and Spiegelman et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 4 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.
Claim 29 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), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 A1) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0043379 A1).
The method or Rebstock as modified by Andrews et al., Chuang et al, Ciari and Spiegelman et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 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.
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), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 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]); interacting the clean dry air with surfaces of the one or more wafers 217, thereby removing a contaminant away from the surfaces of the one or more wafers 217 and integrating the contaminant with the clean dry air, wherein the contaminant comprises airborne molecules (paragraphs [0005], [0010]); 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 and analyzing the portion of the clean dry air to determine a concentration of a plurality of types of contaminants in the clean dry air in real time. 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 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). Chuang et al. discloses measuring, with an analyzer 300, a contaminant in real time (paragraph [0033]). 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). Spiegelman et al. discloses removal of airborne molecular contaminants using a clean dry air comprising less than 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor (paragraph [0038]). 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 measure the contaminant in real time as taught by Chuang et al. in order to accurately measure the contaminant and improve the contaminants control efficiency and to further 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 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor to dry substrate as taught by Spiegelman et al. in order to eliminate contaminants and ensure consistent reliable drying outcomes.
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), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 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., Chuang et al., Ciari and Spiegelman 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.
Claims 15, 17, 19, 31 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), Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 A1).
Rebstock discloses a method of drying one or more wafers, comprising: dispensing, in a wafer drying station 210, 1000, a drying air 220, 1080 vertically towards a wafer 217 (Figs. 2A, 2B, 10, bottom wafer), interacting the clean dry air with surfaces of the wafer 217, thereby removing a contaminant away from the surfaces of the one or more wafers 217 and integrating the contaminant with the clean dry air, wherein the contaminant comprises airborne molecules (paragraphs [0005], [0010]); 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 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 concentration of the contaminant in the drying gas (by switch mechanism 260, 1060, Figs. 2B, 10, paragraphs [0034], [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 dispensing clean dry air towards a central region of a wafer and collecting a portion of the clean dry air; analyzing the portion of the clean dry air to determine a concentration of a plurality of types of contaminants in the clean dry air in real time; and in response to the concentration being greater than the baseline reference, rinsing the wafer with deionized water and re-dispensing the clean dry air over the wafer to remove the plurality of types of contaminants away from the surface of the wafer. 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 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). 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. Chuang et al. discloses measuring, with an analyzer 300, a contaminant in real time (paragraph [0033]). 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 dispensing an inert gas over the wafer after rinsing the wafer to dry the one or more wafers (col. 9, lines 20-30). Spiegelman et al. discloses removal of airborne molecular contaminants using a clean dry air comprising less than 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor (paragraph [0038]). 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 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; 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; and to measure the contaminant in real time as taught by Andrews et al. and Chuang et al. respectively 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 re-dispensing the clean dry air over the water to remove the plurality of types of contaminants away from the surface of 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 0.003 parts per million hydrocarbon vapor to dry substrate as taught by Spiegelman et al. in order to eliminate contaminants and ensure consistent reliable drying outcomes.
With regard to claim 19, Rebstock discloses the contamination comprises volatile organic compounds, amines, inorganic acids, acetone, sulfur dioxide, isopropyl alcohol, water vapors, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0005]). For claim 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). Chuang et al. also discloses dispensing the drying gas comprises dispensing the drying gas towards surfaces of the one or more wafers 400 (Fig. 1) at a predetermined rate (dispensing rate is predetermined by the opening size of vent inlet 130, Fig. 1).
Claims 16 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), Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 A1) as applied to claim 15 as above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0043379 A1).
The method or Rebstock as modified by Sasaki et al., Andrews et al., Chuang et al, Ciari and Spiegelman et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 16 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 Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0043379 A1), Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 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 Sasaki et al, Andrews et al., Chuang et al, Ciari and Spiegelman 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.
Claim 26 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), Andrews et al. (US 2005/0262833 A1), Chuang et al. (US 2016/0320359 A1), Ciari (US 5,419,351) and Spiegelman et al. (US 2004/0238013 A1) as applied to claim 15 as above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2015/0206780).
The drying method of Rebstock as modified by Sasaki et al, Andrews et al., Chuang et al., Ciari and Spiegelman et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 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.
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
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
Prosecution Insights