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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 and 21-25 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. The amendments to claims 1-4, 9, and 10 were amended and necessitate the introduction of the prior art of JP2022034127A which is held to Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the prior art of JP2022-34127A which is held to Tomohiro Takahashi et al using the Machine Generated Translation provided herewith.
The prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al teaches a substrate processing device.
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al teaches a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a treatment tank 821 for storing a chemical solution for treating a substrate immersed in the treatment tank; a holder (lifter 810b) configured to hold the substrate while in the treatment tank; a first chemical discharge pipe 831a and a second chemical discharge pipe 831b in the treatment tank below a position of the holder, the first chemical discharge pipe and the second chemical discharge pipe each for supplying the chemical solution to the treatment tank; a first bubble discharge pipe 841b in the treatment tank below the position of the holder, the first bubble discharge pipe being closer along a first horizontal direction to a centerline of the treatment tank than is the first chemical discharge pipe and the second chemical discharge pipe, the first bubble discharge pipe being between the first chemical discharge pipe and the second chemical discharge pipe along the first horizontal direction, and configured for discharging a gas into the chemical solution; and a rectifying plate in the treatment tank below the position of the holder, rectifying plate 861 extending from a position above the chemical discharge pipe to a position above the first bubble discharge pipe at an incline with respect to the first direction horizontal. See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 2: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a height of the rectifying plate 861 from a bottom surface of the treatment tank 821 is greater at the position above the first bubble discharge pipe 841b side than a height of the rectifying plate 861 from the bottom surface of the treatment tank at the position above the first chemical discharge pipe 831a, and a distance between the first bubble discharge pipe 841b and the rectifying plate 861 is greater than a distance between the first chemical discharge pipe 831a and the rectifying plate 861. See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 3: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rectifying plate 861 is directly above the first bubble discharge pipe 841b, the first chemical discharge pipe 831a, and the second chemical discharge pipe 831b in a vertical direction perpendicular to a bottom surface of the treatment tank 821. See Fig. 6 of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 4: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first chemical discharge pipe 831a and the second chemical discharge pipe 831b has a discharge port angled towards the centerline and upwards towards the holder (lifter 810b). See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 5: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first bubble discharge pipe 841b has a discharge port angled towards the centerline and upwards towards the holder (lifter 810b). See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 8: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rectifying plate 861 overlaps the first bubble discharge pipe 841b when viewed from above. See Figs. 6 and 9 of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 10: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a second bubble discharge pipe 841c in the treatment tank 821 below the position of the holder (lifter 810b), the second bubble discharge pipe 841c being closer along the first horizontal direction to a wall of the treatment tank 821 than is the first chemical discharge pipe 831a and configured for discharging the gas into the chemical solution. See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 11: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the second bubble discharge pipe 841c discharges the gas toward the centerline VS. See Fig 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 21: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the second bubble discharge pipe 841c is between the first chemical discharge pipe 831a and the wall of the treatment tank 821. See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 22: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 21, further comprising: a third bubble discharge pipe 841a, 841d in the treatment tank 821 below the position of the holder, the third bubble discharge pipe 41a, 841d being closer along the first horizontal direction to the wall of the treatment tank 821 than the second chemical discharge pipe 831b and configured to discharging the gas into the chemical solution. See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 23: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the third bubble discharge pipe 841a, 841d is between the second chemical discharge pipe 831b and the wall of the treatment tank 821. See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 24: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the centerline VS of the treatment tank 821 is located between the first chemical discharge pipe 831a and the second chemical discharge pipe 831b. See Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 25: The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rectifying plate 861 has a first portion and a second portion, the centerline VS of the treatment tank 821 is located between the first portion and the second portion, and the first portion and the second portion are inclined symmetrically about the centerline of the processing tank 821.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 4, 6, and 9 of Tomohiro Takahashi et al (JP2022-34127A)
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.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of JP2022-34127A which is held to Tomohiro Takahashi et al in Tanaka et al (US 5,875,804).
The teachings of the prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al were discussed above.
Regarding claim 6: The prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al fails to teach
The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first bubble discharge pipe discharges the gas toward the centerline at an angle of at least 60° from a vertical direction perpendicular a bottom surface of the treatment tank.
See Figs.1, 4A, and 4B of Tanaka et al and col. 5 line 34-col. 6 line 64 which teaches that the contact angle of the bubbles is less than 90°. The angle of discharge is a matter of optimization where the angle is would have been determined without undue experimentation such the apparatus is design to ensure the dimensions to include the angle of discharge is optimal to ensure that the angle of discharge allows the process fluid to be distributed to the wafer as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective date of the claimed invention to optimize the angle of discharge of the apparatus of Tomohiro Takahashi et al as suggested by the Tanaka et al.
Regarding claim 7: The prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al fails to teach
The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first bubble discharge pipe 841b is disposed within 2.5 centimeters (cm) from the centerline along the first horizontal direction. The prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al or in combination with Tanaka et al fails to teach the specific dimensions of the first bubble discharge pipe. Nevertheless, barring a showing of criticality, the dimensions of the first discharge pipe angle is a matter of optimization where the angle is would have been determined without undue experimentation such the apparatus is design the bubble discharge pipe to ensure the dimensions are optimal to ensure bubble discharge pipe allows the process fluid to be distributed to the wafer as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective date of the claimed invention to optimize dimensions of the bubble discharge pipe to include the angle of discharge so that the processing fluid can be focused to the desired location.
Regarding claim 9: The prior art of Tomohiro Takahashi et al fails to teach
The substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rectifying plate overlaps 50% or more of the chemical discharge pipe when viewed from above. See Figs.1, 4A, and 4B of Tanaka et al. Barring a showing of criticality the dimensions of the rectifying plate and chemical discharge pipe are interpreted as a matter of optimization where the angle is would have been determined without undue experimentation such the apparatus is design the dimensions of the rectifying plate and chemical discharge pipe are a matter of optimization where the relative location of the rectifying plate and chemical discharge pipe would have been determined without undue experimentation to ensure the chemical discharge pipe allows the process fluid to be distributed to the wafer as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective date of the claimed invention to optimize dimensions the rectifying plate and chemical discharge pipe of Tomohiro Takahashi et al so that the processing fluid can be focused to the desired location as suggested by Tanaka et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
750
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
634
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 and 8 of Tanaka et al (US 5,875,804)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of JP2022034127A which is held to Tomohiro Takahashi et al using the Machine Generated Translation provided herewith in view of Fujiwara et al (US 2009/0239384).
The teachings of Tomohiro Takahashi et al were discussed above.
The apparatus of Tomohiro Takahashi et al fails to teach the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the second bubble discharge pipe discharges the gas away from the centerline toward the wall.
See the substrate processing apparatus of Fujiwara et al where the bubble discharge pipes (set of discharge holes) 141 of nozzles 14b and 14d where the process fluid is discharged to the wall 11a. See Figs. 3 (below) and 4 of Fujiwara et al. The location of the nozzles and where they would discharge is a matter of optimization. The motivation to direct the second bubble discharge pipe of Tomohiro Takahashi et al with the teachings of Fujiwara et al to discharge the gas away from the centerline toward the wall so that the gas will create bubbles allowing the liquid to be carried through the bubbles. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to direct the second bubble discharge pipe of Tomohiro Takahashi to discharge the gas away from the centerline toward the wall as suggested by the prior art of Fujiwara et al.
PNG
media_image5.png
746
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3 and 4 of Fujiwara et al (US 2009/0239384)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Battey US 4,482,425 teaches a liquid etching reactor and method see Fig. 2.
Konishi et al US 2020/0194280 teaches a substrate processing apparatus with a treatment tank 100 and bubble discharge pipe 134.
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 SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716