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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1 – 8 and 10. Claim 9 is cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikarashi et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0055077 A1) in view of Park (KR 20090110632 A), Hiroshi (CN107871684 A) and Eum et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0163900 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ikarashi teaches a substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0002]) comprising: a stage (stage, 31) on which a substrate (substrate, S; Fig. 7) is placed; a support unit (wafer hold stage, 13) configured to support the substrate (S); and a cleaning unit (Fig. 7) configured to spray a dual fluid to clean the substrate (Paragraph [0126]); wherein the cleaning unit (Fig. 7) comprises: a spray nozzle (first and second nozzles, 101 and 102) comprising a spray hole (blowout openings, 101b and 102b) opened toward the stage (Fig. 7) and configured to spray a dual fluid through the spray hole (Fig. 7); a cover (cleaning head, 91) that comprises an inlet (105b), and that is spaced apart from the spray nozzle (101 and 102) by a predetermined distance (Fig. 7); and an air flow passage (105) formed in a space between the cover and the spray nozzle (Fig. 7) and through which air sucked from the inlet flows (Paragraph [0072]).
Ikarashi does not explicitly teach a support unit configured to rotate the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park, however, teaches a substrate cleaning apparatus (subtract processing device, 100) comprising: a stage (Annotated Fig. 3) on which a substrate (substrate, W) is placed; a support unit (substrate support and rotation mechanism, 110) configured to support the substrate and to rotate the substrate (Fig. 3; Page 6); and a cleaning unit (Annotated Fig. 3) configured to spray a dual fluid to clean the substrate (Translation Page 7); wherein the cleaning unit comprises: a spray nozzle (two-fluid nozzle, 120) opened toward the stage (Annotated Fig. 3) and configured to spray a dual fluid through the spray hole (Translation Page 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ikarashi to further include a support unit configured to rotate the substrate, as taught by Park, to provide a cleaning where the cleaning time is reduced and ensures a uniform cleaning.
Ikarashi does not teach a cover that comprises an inlet surrounding at least a partial area of an outer circumferential surface of the spray hole; wherein the stage comprises an outlet that is disposed in a direction surrounding the substrate disposed on the support unit and is configured to suck air from the stage, and an area of the inlet is smaller than an area surrounded by the outlet.
Hiroshi, however, teaches a cover (61) that comprises an inlet (61c) surrounding at least a partial area of an outer circumferential surface of the spray hole (spray hole of 61a; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include an inlet surrounding at least a partial area of an outer circumferential surface of the spray hole, as taught by Hiroshi, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04).
PNG
media_image2.png
558
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eum, further, teaches a cover (3840; Figs. 11 and 12) that comprises an inlet (Annotated Fig. 12) surrounding at least a partial area of an outer circumferential surface of the spray hole (3722), wherein the stage (directly under W; Fig. 13) comprises an outlet (exhaust space, 1248 with outlet, 3762) that is disposed in a direction surrounding the substrate (W; Fig. 13) disposed on the support unit (20) and is configured to suck air from the stage (Paragraph [0143] and Fig. 13), and an area of the inlet is smaller than an area surrounded by the outlet.
PNG
media_image3.png
550
623
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include the stage comprises an outlet that is disposed in a direction surrounding the substrate disposed on the support unit and is configured to suck air from the stage, as taught by Eum, to provide a disposal of contaminated air, thus reducing pollutants.
Regarding Claim 2, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikarashi does not teach the inlet surrounds an entire outer circumferential surface of the spray hole.
Hiroshi, however, teaches the inlet (61c) surrounds an entire outer circumferential surface of the spray hole (spray hole of 61a; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include the inlet surrounds an entire outer circumferential surface of the spray hole, as taught by Hiroshi, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 3, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikarashi does not teach the substrate cleaning apparatus wherein the inlet is disposed relatively closer to the stage than the spray hole.
Hiroshi, however, teaches the inlet (61c) is disposed relatively closer to the stage (22) than the spray hole (spray hole of 61a; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include the inlet is disposed relatively closer to the stage than the spray hole, as taught by Hiroshi, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikarashi does not teach the cover comprises a distal end portion extending to a position closer to the stage than the spray nozzle.
Hiroshi, however, teaches the cover (61) comprises a distal end portion (Annotated Fig. 5) extending to a position closer to the stage (22) than the spray nozzle (61a).
PNG
media_image4.png
670
801
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include the cover comprises a distal end portion extending to a position closer to the stage than the spray nozzle, as taught by Hiroshi, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikarashi does not explicitly teach the cleaning unit comprises: a gas line connected to the spray nozzle and configured to supply gas to the spray nozzle; and a liquid line connected to the spray nozzle and configured to supply de-ionized water (DIW) to the spray nozzle
Park, however, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (subtract processing device, 100) wherein the cleaning unit comprises: a gas line (via gas control unit, 151) connected to the spray nozzle (120) and configured to supply gas to the spray nozzle (120; Translation page 11) and a liquid line (via liquid control unit, 152) connected to the spray nozzle (120) and configured to supply de-ionized water (DIW) to the spray nozzle (120; Translation page 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include the cover comprises a distal end portion extending to a position closer to the stage than the spray nozzle, as taught by Park, to provide efficient gas and liquid mixing to enhance the cleaning of the substrate.
Regarding Claim 6, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikarashi does not explicitly teach the cover comprises: a through hole through which the gas line and the liquid line pass; and a sealing member provided in the through hole.
Park, however, teaches the cover (54) comprises: a through hole (57 and 60) through which the gas line and the liquid line pass (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include a through hole through which the gas line and the liquid line pass, as taught by Park, to provide efficient gas and liquid mixing to enhance the cleaning of the substrate.
Park does not explicitly teach a sealing member provided in the through hole; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include the cover comprises a distal end portion extending to a position closer to the stage than the spray nozzle, as taught by Hiroshi, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the stage (31) comprises a guard ring (52; Fig. 9) surrounding the substrate (S) disposed on the support unit (13) and extending to an upper part of the stage (Fig. 9).
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikarashi et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0055077 A1) in view of Park (KR 20090110632 A), Hiroshi (CN107871684 A) and Lee (KR 20190077921 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikarashi does not explicitly teach a chamber configured to accommodate the stage in the chamber.
Lee, however, teaches a chamber configured to accommodate the stage (122) in the chamber (Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include a chamber configured to accommodate the stage in the chamber, as taught by Lee, to provide a cleaning in a sealed environment, thus preventing the influx of external particles and ensuring a quality cleaning.
Regarding Claim 8, Ikarashi, as modified, teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikarashi does not explicitly teach the cleaning unit is configured to pass air sucked through the inlet through the air flow passage and discharge air to an outside of the chamber.
Lee, however, teaches the cleaning unit is configured to pass air sucked through the inlet through the air flow passage and discharge air to an outside of the chamber (Paragraphs [0011], [0051] and [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to include the cleaning unit is configured to pass air sucked through the inlet through the air flow passage and discharge air to an outside of the chamber, as taught by Lee, to provide a cleaning in a sealed environment, thus preventing the influx of external particles and ensuring a quality cleaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated June 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues that unexpected effects of the inlet rea is smaller than the area surrounding the outlet and that the references fail to teach the limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Eum teaches the limitations as claimed and as rejected above.
Contact Information
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights