DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 03/11/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, and 10 are amended.
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, see pages 7-8, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 1-3, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lubomirsky U.S. Publication 2015/0064809 (henceforth referred to as Lubomirsky).
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) Lubomirsky teaches a substrate processing apparatus that processes a substrate with a processing liquid, comprising:
a processing container (FIG. 1 paragraph [0020] chamber body 104);
a first substrate holder configured to horizontally hold the substrate inside the processing container (FIG. 1 paragraph [0021] support surface 118 of pedestal 114 reads on the claimed first substrate holder);
a rotation drive configured to rotate the first substrate holder about a vertical rotation central axis (FIG. 1 paragraph [0022] pedestal 114 is coupled to an actuator 126A via a shaft that provides a rotational movement (about axis A));
a second substrate holder configured to horizontally hold the substrate inside the processing container (FIG. 1 paragraph [0021] edge supporting member 116 reads on the claimed second substrate holder);
a movement drive configured to move the first substrate holder and the second substrate holder relative to each other (paragraph [0022] actuator 126B moves the edge supporting member 116 relative to the pedestal 114); and
a controller configured to control the rotation drive and the movement drive, wherein the controller performs a first control including a cycle of holding the substrate, releasing the substrate, and re-holding the substrate at a different position during a processing of the single substrate to change a first contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder (paragraph [0026] the edge supporting member 116 temporarily supports the substrate 110 in a spaced-apart relation above the pedestal 114, which allows rotation of the pedestal 114 relative to the substrate 110. The pedestal 114 may be rotated in an angular displacement in increments that are less than about 360 degrees. After rotating the pedestal 114, the substrate may be replaced onto the support surface 118 of the pedestal 114. The controller would be inherent as the actions of holding, releasing and re-holding the substrate are being performed.).
As to claim 2, (Currently Amended) Lubomirsky further teaches the controller performs a second control to translate the first contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder in a plan view on a first horizontal axis passing through a center of the substrate and being perpendicular to the rotation central axis (paragraph [0035] At block 510, the substrate is lowered and positioned at a first position onto the support surface 118 of the pedestal 114. The substrate would be placed on the first substrate holder in a plan view on a first horizontal axis passing through a center of the substrate and being perpendicular to the rotation central axis.).
As to claim 3, (Currently Amended) Lubomirsky further teaches the controller performs a third control to translate the first contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder in the plan view on a second horizontal axis passing through the center of the substrate and being perpendicular to the rotation central axis, and wherein the second horizontal axis is different from the first horizontal axis (paragraph [0039] at block 525, after the pedestal 114 is rotated at some increment less than about 360 degrees, the substrate can be repositioned on the pedestal 114. When the substrate is replaced onto the pedestal, it would be on a second horizontal axis passing through the center of the substrate, perpendicular to the horizontal axis, which is different to the first horizontal axis.).
As to claim 7, (Original) Lubomirsky further teaches the second substrate holder comes into contact with a lower surface of the substrate (FIG. 1 the edge supporting member 116 comes into contact with a lower surface of the substrate 110).
As to claim 8, (Original) Lubomirsky further teaches the second substrate holder comes into contact with an outer periphery of the substrate (FIG. 1 the edge supporting member 116 comes into contact with an outer periphery of the substrate).
As to claim 15, (Original) Lubomirsky further teaches the second substrate holder comes into contact with a lower surface of the substrate (FIG. 1 the edge supporting member 116 comes into contact with a lower surface of the substrate 110).
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lubomirsky U.S. Publication 2015/0064809 (henceforth referred to as Lubomirsky) in view of Wytman U.S. Publication 2001/0036742 (henceforth referred to as Wytman).
As to claim 4, (Original) Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a first attractive- force applier configured to apply, to the first substrate holder, an attractive force that attracts the substrate,
wherein the controller repeatedly performs a fourth control to manifest the attractive force, a fifth control to dissipate the attractive force, and a sixth control to change the contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder.
Wytman teaches a similar substrate holder (FIG. 3 paragraph [0022] a chuck for use with a processing chamber). Wytman teaches a first attractive-force applier configured to apply, to the first substrate holder, an attractive force that attracts the substrate (paragraph [0026] holes 19 are utilized for a vacuum channel to the surface of central disk 12),
wherein the controller repeatedly performs a fourth control to manifest the attractive force (paragraph [0026] a vacuum is used to hold the wafer on the disk 12 via holes 19), a fifth control to dissipate the attractive force (paragraph [0048] the vacuum can be turned off), and a sixth control to change the contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder (paragraph [0048] a wafer handling tool can be inserted under the wafer 35 and lift if off of the central disk, which reads on changing the contact position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with an attractive force applier as taught by Wytman. It is known in the art to have an attractive force applier such as a vacuum in order to hold and secure a wafer to the chuck. It would have been obvious to be able to turn the vacuum off in order to move the wafer from the chuck.
As to claim 13, (Original) Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a first attractive-force applier configured to apply, to the first substrate holder, an attractive force that attracts the substrate, wherein the controller repeatedly performs a third control to manifest the attractive force, a fourth control to dissipate the attractive force, and a fifth control to change the contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder.
Wytman teaches a similar substrate holder (FIG. 3 paragraph [0022] a chuck for use with a processing chamber). Wytman teaches a first attractive-force applier configured to apply, to the first substrate holder, an attractive force that attracts the substrate (paragraph [0026] holes 19 are utilized for a vacuum channel to the surface of central disk 12),
wherein the controller repeatedly performs a fourth control to manifest the attractive force (paragraph [0026] a vacuum is used to hold the wafer on the disk 12 via holes 19), a fifth control to dissipate the attractive force (paragraph [0048] the vacuum can be turned off), and a sixth control to change the contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder (paragraph [0048] a wafer handling tool can be inserted under the wafer 35 and lift if off of the central disk, which reads on changing the contact position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with an attractive force applier as taught by Wytman. It is known in the art to have an attractive force applier such as a vacuum in order to hold and secure a wafer to the chuck. It would have been obvious to be able to turn the vacuum off in order to move the wafer from the chuck.
Claim 5, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lubomirsky U.S. Publication 2015/0064809 (henceforth referred to as Lubomirsky) in view of Obaru U.S. Publication 2021/0159097 (henceforth referred to as Obaru).
As to claim 5, (Original) Lubomirsky further teaches the movement drive is configured to move the second substrate holder in a vertical direction (paragraph [0022] actuator 126B is coupled to edge supporting member 116 to provide vertical movement).
Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the movement drive is configured to move the second substrate holder in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotation central axis of the first substrate holder.
Obaru teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0023] substrate processing apparatus 10). Obaru teaches the movement drive is configured to move the second substrate holder in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotation central axis of the first substrate holder and in a vertical direction (FIGS. 7A-7B paragraph [0054] second holder 22 moves in the X-axis direction. The movement is perpendicular to the rotation axis of the first substrate holder 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with horizontal movement of the second holder as taught by Obaru. By having horizontal movement, the rear surface of the substrate can be accessed by cleaning means such as friction body 70 (paragraph [0054]).
As to claim 10, (Currently Amended) Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a cleaner configured to clean the substrate after the first contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder in a plan view is translated.
Obaru teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0023] substrate processing apparatus 10). Obaru further teaches a cleaner configured to clean the substrate after the first contact position of the substrate with the first substrate holder in a plan view is shifted (paragraph [0023] friction body 70 scrubs the lower surface of the substrate during the supply of the first and second processing liquids. Paragraph [0034] the first processing liquid is a chemical liquid used for cleaning such as SC1 and the second processing liquid is a rinsing liquid. The friction body 70 and processing liquids are cleaners that clean the substrate as demonstrated in S41-S42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with a cleaner as taught by Obaru. It would have been obvious to have a cleaner in order to remove contaminants from the surface of the substrate.
As to claim 14, (Original) Lubomirsky further teaches the movement drive is configured to move the second substrate holder in a vertical direction (paragraph [0022] actuator 126B is coupled to edge supporting member 116 to provide vertical movement).
Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the movement drive is configured to move the second substrate holder in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotation central axis of the first substrate holder.
Obaru teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0023] substrate processing apparatus 10). Obaru teaches the movement drive is configured to move the second substrate holder in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotation central axis of the first substrate holder and in a vertical direction (FIGS. 7A-7B paragraph [0054] second holder 22 moves in the X-axis direction. The movement is perpendicular to the rotation axis of the first substrate holder 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with horizontal movement of the second holder as taught by Obaru. By having horizontal movement, the rear surface of the substrate can be accessed by cleaning means such as friction body 70 (paragraph [0054]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lubomirsky U.S. Publication 2015/0064809 (henceforth referred to as Lubomirsky) in view of Shinohara et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0093420 (henceforth referred to as Shinohara).
As to claim 6, (Original) Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the movement drive is configured to move the first substrate holder in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotation central axis of the first substrate holder.
Shinohara teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0090] substrate cleaning device 1). Shinohara teaches the movement drive is configured to move the first substrate holder in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the rotation central axis of the first substrate holder (FIG. 6 paragraph [0127] as indicated by the thick solid arrow a4 in FIG. 6, the mobile base 32 is moved forwardly from the first horizontal position such that suction holder 21 deviates from the plane reference position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with horizontal movement of the first substrate holder as taught by Shinohara. It would have been obvious to move the first substrate holder so that a cleaning brush can move into position to clean the bottom surface of the wafer (paragraphs [0127]-[0128]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lubomirsky U.S. Publication 2015/0064809 (henceforth referred to as Lubomirsky) in view of Park et al. KR20110073190 (henceforth referred to as Park).
As to claim 9, (Original) Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach substrate includes a removal layer that comes into contact with the first substrate holder to remove contaminants, and wherein the removal layer is a fiber wipe, a brush, a sponge, an adhesive film, or a resin film.
Park teaches a method and apparatus to clean a first substrate holder (paragraph [0001] wafer chuck particle removal method and particle removal cleaning paper). Park teaches a removal layer that comes into contact with the first substrate holder to remove contaminants (paragraph [0030] cleaning paper 4, which is divided into film paper 6, adhesive paper 8, and fuji paper 10, is used to remove particles generated on the wafer chuck), and wherein the removal layer is an adhesive film (FIG. 6d paragraph [0047] the exposed middle layer body 16 of the adhesive 8 is attached to the wafer chuck 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with a removal layer as taught by Park. It is known in the art to use a removal layer to clean the wafer chuck to reduce the scratches appearing on the wafer chuck (page 5 of translation).
The substrate is not a positively recited component of the apparatus as set forth in claims 1 and 9. A particular substrate used with the claimed apparatus is an intended use of the apparatus. The apparatus taught by Lubomirsky is capable of being used with a substrate as recited in claim 9. Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are met based on the teachings of Lubomirsky.
Claims 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lubomirsky U.S. Publication 2015/0064809 (henceforth referred to as Lubomirsky) in view of Mouri et al. U. S. Publication 2020/0083064 (henceforth referred to as Mouri).
As to claim 8, Lubomirsky differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the second substrate holder comes into contact with an outer periphery of the substrate.
Mouri teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 3 paragraph [0058] substrate processing apparatus). Mouri teaches the second substrate holder comes into contact with an outer periphery of the substrate (paragraph [0060] the suction pad 21, which reads on the claimed second substrate holder, holds a peripheral portion of the back surface of the wafer W).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with a second substrate holder that contacts the periphery portion of the substrate as taught by Mouri. It is known in the art for holder to hold a wafer on the periphery portion as it would allow for better access to treat the central surface of the wafer (paragraph [0076]).
As to claim 11, (Original) Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the controller performs a seventh control to repeat a contact between the second substrate holder and the substrate by changing a second contact position of the substrate with the second substrate holder .
Mouri teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 3 paragraph [0058] substrate processing apparatus). Mouri teaches the controller performs a seventh control to repeat a contact between the second substrate holder and the substrate by changing a second contact position of the substrate with the second substrate holder (paragraph [0075] in step S101, lifting pins 223 delivers the wafer W to the suction pad 21, which reads on the claimed second substrate holder. Paragraph [0085] in step S105, the carry-out process is performed in which the wafer W is delivered to the transfer mechanism in reverse order of the carry-in process (step S101). The suction pad 21 contacts the wafer W in step S101 and repeats contact in step S105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with a second substrate holder that repeats contact with the wafer as taught by Mouri. If the second substrate holder was used to transport the wafer from the lifting pins to the spin chuck, it would have been obvious that it would need to repeat contact with the wafer in order to transport the wafer off of the spin chuck to transfer it to the lifting pins.
As to claim 12, (Original) Lubomirsky differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a plurality of lifting pins configured to raise or lower the substrate relative to the first substrate holder or the second substrate holder, wherein the controller performs an eighth control to repeat contact between the plurality of lifting pins and the substrate by changing a third contact position of the substrate with the plurality of lifting pins.
Mouri teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 3 paragraph [0058] substrate processing apparatus). Mouri teaches a plurality of lifting pins configured to raise or lower the substrate relative to the first substrate holder or the second substrate holder (paragraph [0063] three lifting pins 223, which may be lifted and lowered by a lifting mechanism, are provided around the spin chuck 22), wherein the controller performs an eighth control to repeat contact between the plurality of lifting pins and the substrate by changing a third contact position of the substrate with the plurality of lifting pins (paragraph [0075] in step S101, lifting pins 223 moves up and contacts the wafer W, then lowers and delivers the wafer W to the suction pad 21. Paragraph [0085] in step S105, the carry-out process is performed in which the wafer W is delivered to the transfer
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus as taught by Lubomirsky with lifting pins that repeats contact with the wafer as taught by Mouri. If the lifting pins were used to transport the wafer to the suction pad, it would have been obvious that it would need to repeat contact with the wafer in order to transport the wafer off of the suction pad.
Conclusion
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 LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights