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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5 and 11 are 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 4 is indefinite because the claim recites “the second chemical solution supply modules supplies a second chemical solution” and it is not clear if this “a second chemical solution” is the same as or different from the “second chemical solution” supplied in parent claim 1. For the purposes of this examination they will be considered the same.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the claim recites “supplying a first chemical solution” and it is not clear if this “a first chemical solution” is the same as or different from the “first chemical solution” supplied in parent claim 1. For the purposes of this examination they will be considered the same.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “wind”. Based on Paragraphs 0054-0055 of the specification of the present application as originally filed the term “wind” will be taken to mean air flow.
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 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanba (U.S. Patent # 7,699,939) in view of Yoshizumi et al (U.S. Patent # 9,508,568).
In the case of claim 1, Nanba teaches a method for processing a substrate comprising a substrate cleaning method (Abstract). The method of Nanba comprised providing a substrate processing apparatus/wafer cleaning apparatus 100 comprising a support module in the form of a spin chuck 12 on which a substrate/wafer W was seated and which was also rotatable and a housing in the form of an inner chamber 11 which surrounded the support module/spin chuck 12 (Column 4 Lines 55-67, Column 5 Line 34 through Column 6 Line 9 and Figure 1). The apparatus further comprised a first chemical solution supply module for discharging a first chemical solution onto the substrate W in the form of a chemical supply line 73 and a second chemical solution supply module for discharging a second chemical solution different from the first chemical solution to the substrate W in the form of a purified water supply line 74 (Column 6 Line 57 through Column 7 Line 2 and Figure 4).
Nanba further teaches a step 1 of having supplied the first chemical solution/chemical onto the substrate W while the wafer was rotated at a first speed of approximately 10 to 500 rpm (Column 7 Lines 33-51). Nanba further teaches that the second chemical solution/purified water was supplied at a first flow rate while the substrate W was rotated at a second speed of approximately 10 to 1500 rpm (Column 7 Lines 52-58). Furthermore, Nanba teaches a step 3 wherein the flow rate of second chemical solution/purified water was either decreased from the first flow rate or stopped while the rotation speed of the substrate W was reduced from the second speed (Column 7 Line 59 through Column 8 Line 14).
As for the limitation that the second rotation speed was equal to or smaller than the first rotation speed as was discussed previously, the first rotation speed during step 1 was approximately 10 to 500 rpm which overlapped with the second rotation speed of approximately 10 to 1500 rpm. Therefore, Nanba teaches embodiments wherein the second rotation speed was equal to or smaller than the first rotation speed because the first rotation speed of Nanba overlapped with the second rotation speed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Though Nanba taught a housing surrounding the support module/spin chuck Nanba did not teach that the housing comprised a first bowl and a second bowl disposed inside the first bowl wherein while the first chemical solution was being supplied the first bowl was located to correspond to the substrate and that during supplying the second chemical solution the second bowl was located to correspond to the substrate. Nanba does teach that the inner chamber 11 was located to correspond to the substrate/wafer W during processing in order to collect the chemical and purified water discharged from the wafer during processing/cleaning (Column 5 Lines 34-57).
Yoshizumi teaches a method for processing/cleaning a substrate (Column 1 Lines 10-12). The method of Yoshizumi used an apparatus comprising a support module/spin chuck 20 surrounded by a housing in the form of a processing cup 40 (Column 5 Lines 53-67). The housing/processing cup 40 of Yoshizumi comprised a first bowl in the form of an outer cup 43 and a second bowl in the form of middle cup 42 disposed inside the first bowl/cup 43 (Column 7 Line 59 through Column 8 Line 11 and Figure 2). The method of Yoshizumi comprised supplying to a substrate/wafer a processing liquid/liquid chemical followed by a rinsing liquid/deionized water (Column 12 Lines 26-43). Yoshizumi teaches that during supplying the liquid chemical the first bowl/outer cup 43 was located to correspond to the substrate W in order to provide a surface to collect liquid chemical flown off of the substrate (Column 11 Lines 23-37 and Figure 4). Yoshizumi further teaches that during supplying the rinsing liquid/deionized water the second bowl/middle cup 42 was located to correspond to the substrate so that the deionized liquid flown off the substrate W was collected via a route different from the liquid chemical (Column 11 Lines 49-67 and Figure 5 and 6).
Based on the teachings of Yoshizumi, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the processing cup of Yoshizumi as the inner chamber/housing in the method of Nanba and having located the first bowl/cup to correspond to the substrate during supplying the first chemical solution and having located the second bowl/cup to correspond to the substrate during supplying the second chemical solution so that the chemical liquid and rinsing liquid of Nanba can be separately collected.
As for claims 2-5 and 8, Nanba does not teach having supplied the second chemical solution at a third flow rate after having not supplied the second chemical solution or having supplied the second chemical solution at a second flow rate nor does Nanba teach having supplied the first chemical after the second chemical solution supply module did not supply the second chemical solution or supplied the second chemical solution at a second flow rate. However, Yoshizumi teaches having alternately repeated the steps of supplying a liquid chemical solution and supplying the rising solution to the substrate until the liquid chemical process was completed (Column 12 Lines 1-16).
Based on the teachings of Yoshizumi, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have supplied the first and second chemical solutions after the second chemical solution supply module did not supply the second chemical solution or supplied the second chemical solution at a second flow rate in order to further chemically treat the substrate surface until the substrate surface was completely cleaned.
As for the first flow rate being greater than the first flow rate Nanba does not specifically teach this. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal flow rates for the first and second chemical solutions of Nanba in view of Yoshizumi through routine experimentation because the flow rates affected how much chemical liquid or purified water was supplied onto the substrate surface.
As for the limitation of claim 4 of having moved the first bowl to a position corresponding to the substrate while the second chemical was supplied Nanba does not teach this. However, as was discussed previously it would have been obvious to have alternatively supplied the first and second chemical and have located the first and second bowls for these supplying steps. Furthermore, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) states, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP section 2144.04.IV.C.
Therefore, the positioning of the first bowl corresponding to the substrate while the second chemical solution was supplied would have been obvious because the ordering in which the chemical solutions were supplied and the bowls were positioned would not have affected the outcome of the cleaning process of Nanba in view of Yoshizumi.
As for claim 6, Nanba does not specifically teach that the first time during which the second chemical solution/purified water was supplied was shorter than a second time in which the second chemical solution was not supplied or supplied at a second rate. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for relevant process parameters through routine experimentation.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal duration for the first time and the second time of Nanba in view of Yoshizumi through routine experimentation because the duration of the first time and the second time affected how much second chemical solution/purified water was supplied onto and removed from the substrate/wafer W.
As for claim 7, as was discussed previously in the rejection of claim 2, it would have been obvious to have supplied the second chemical solution of Nanba in view of Yoshizumi at least one additional time. Furthermore, as was discussed in the rejection of claim 6, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for relevant process parameters such as chemical supply duration times through routine experimentation.
As for claim 10, as was discussed in the rejection of claim 4, it would have been obvious to have moved the bowls during the suppling of the chemical solutions.
As for claim 11, though Nanba teaches having flowed wind/nitrogen gas in the vicinity of the edge of the substrate during processing (Column 5 Lines 24-33) Nanba does not teach that the wind/gas speed during the first bowl being located to correspond to the substrate was greater than the wind speed when the second bowl was located to correspond to the substrate. However, Nanba does teach that wind/flow of nitrogen gas prevented to formation of watermarks on the substrate surface (Column 5 Lines 24-33).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal wind speeds during the process of Nanba in view of Yoshizumi through routine experimentation because the wind speed affected the formation of watermarks on the substrate surface.
As for claim 12, as was discussed previously, the chemical solutions of Nanba included a rinsing solution/purified water and an etchant in the form of chemical HF (Column 7 Lines 33-51).
In the case of claims 13 and 14, they are rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10 in that Nanba in view of Yoshizumi renders obvious having located a first bowl to correspond to the substrate while supplying a first chemical solution, moving the second bowl to correspond to the substrate while supplying the first chemical solution and supplying the second chemical solution while the second bowl was located to correspond to the substrate all while the substrate was being rotated and then repeating the processing steps. Furthermore, Nanba teaches a step of having stopped the supply of the second chemical solution/purified water while the support module was rotated (Column 8 Lines 15-54).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanba in view of Yoshizumi et al as applied to claims 8 and 13 above, and further in view of Jeong et al (U.S. Patent # 8,793,898).
The teachings of Nanba in view of Yoshizumi as they apply to claims 8 and 13 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 9 and 15, Nanba teaches after the cleaning step with the second chemical solution/purified water the substrate was subjected to a drying step wherein the substrate was rotated and supplied with a drying gas in the form of nitrogen (Column 8 Lines 15-23). However, Nanba does not teach having supplied a drying solution on the substrate.
Jeong teaches a drying process using a drying solution in the form of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) along with a drying gas to dry a substrate (Abstract). Jeong teaches that the substrate was first subjected to an etching processing using hydrofluoric acid (HF) and a cleaning/rinsing process using deionized (DI) water (Column 7 Line 59 through Column 8 Line 8). After the cleaning process the drying solution/IPA and drying gas/nitrogen was supplied to the substrate surface to dry the substrate and Jeong teaches that the IPA solution helped remove moisture/remaining DI water from the substrate surface (Column 8 Lines 9-57).
Based on the teachings of Jeong, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have supplied a drying solution/IPA solution to the surface of the substrate of Nanba in view of Yoshizumi during the drying process because IPA was a known drying solution in the art used for removing moisture.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 15 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights