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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the above reply.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0390320 to Sasaki et al. (“Sasaki”) in view of US 2017/0330841 to Cook et al. (“Cook”).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses a substrate treating method for treating a pattern-formed surface of a substrate (see ¶ [0018]), the substrate treating method comprising:
a supply process of supplying a substrate treating liquid containing a sublimable substance and a solvent to the pattern-formed surface (see pre-drying processing liquid supply at step S6 in Fig. 5 and ¶ [0009], [0133]-[0135]);
a solidification process of evaporating the solvent in a liquid film of the substrate treating liquid supplied to the pattern-formed surface in the supply process, depositing the sublimable substance, and forming a solidified film containing the sublimable substance (see film thickness reduction and solidifying body form in steps S7-S8 in Fig. 5 and ¶ [0136]-[0140]); and
a sublimation process of sublimating the solidified film and removing the solidified film (see step S9 in Fig. 5 and ¶ [0141]-[0143]).
Sasaki discloses the claimed invention including subliming a solidified film from the substrate thereby removing the solidified film, but Sasaki does not expressly disclose wherein the sublimable substance contains at least one of 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-hexanediol and 3-trifluoromethylbenzoic acid. Cook teaches that it is known in the semiconductor processing art to provide sublimable films dissolved in suitable solvents, including 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-hexanediol (see Cook at ¶ [0034]-[0035]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to substitute the sublimable material in Sasaki with the sublimable material including 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-hexanediol, such as that taught in Cook, to yield the same and predictable results of removing a film coating on a semiconductor substrate by sublimation.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki further discloses:
a thinning process of thinning the liquid film of the substrate treating liquid supplied in the supply process onto the pattern-formed surface by rotating the substrate at a first rotation speed about a rotation axis parallel to a direction perpendicular to the pattern-formed surface (see rotation of the substrate and application of the pre-drying processing liquid in ¶ [0136]-[0137]),
wherein the solidification process is a process of rotating the substrate about the rotation axis at a second rotation speed higher than the first rotation speed and evaporating the solvent in the liquid film (see ¶ [0138]-[0139] wherein the solidifying of the pre-drying processing liquid on the substrate is performed at a rotating speed “equal to or different from the liquid supplying speed”).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki further discloses wherein a solvent having a higher vapor pressure at room temperature than the sublimable substance is used as the solvent (see ¶ [0140] where the vapor pressure of the solvent is greater than the sublimable substance; also note the combination of Sasaki and Cook would result in the same materials disclosed by applicant as solvent and sublimable material).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki further discloses wherein the solvent is at least one of methanol, butanol, isopropyl alcohol, and acetone (see use of IPA and acetone as solvent in ¶ [0013] and [0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights