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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on September 16, 2025 was received. Claims 1 and 6-7 were amended, claims 4, 9 and 13 were cancelled and claims 21-22 were newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued July 9, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Higuchi et al. (US 2021/0313171) on claims 1-2 and 4-8 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1 to require a controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2020/0035516).
Regarding claim 1: Higuchi et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus having a housing around a liquid processing unit (10) which is a treatment space (see figure 1), a spin chuck (11) supporting a wafer (W) substrate for rotation about an axis, a chemical liquid nozzle (20) provided above the spin chuck (11) to supply the substrate (W) supported by the chuck (11) with a chemical liquid (CHM), and a N2 gas nozzle (24) provided at a side of the liquid processing unit (10) to supply nitrogen gas to the substrate (W) (pars. 19-21, figures 1-2), where the N2 gas is heated to a temperature higher than the chemical liquid (CHM) such that it is a heat transfer medium (par. 34).
Higuchi et al. also discloses that the N2 gas is heated gas such that it is hotter than the temperature of the liquid on the surface in order to vaporize the solvent therein (par. 34), and teaches that the gas application is used to heat and dry the wafer (W) before applying a chemical solution (42L) such that the liquid is applied to a preheated wafer (W) (par. 35-36). Higuchi et al. fails to explicitly disclose a controller, though does generally teach that the various fluids are ejected in discrete timings relative to each other such that control of one is related to control signals from the others (par. 62)
However, Ikeda et al. discloses a similar substrate process apparatus which includes a controller (90) such as a computer to control and regulate all of the timing and steps with regards to the particular processing sequence (pars. 25-27, 70, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a controller as taught by Ikeda et al. for the apparatus and process of Higuchi et al. because automating a manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2: Higuchi et al. shows that the gas nozzle (24) is provided above the substrate (W) such that it can be considered at an “upper portion” of the housing containing the liquid processing unit (10) (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3: Higuchi et al. does not show where exactly the N2 nozzle (24) is attached such that a determination can be made that it is provided on the substrate support. However, Ikeda et al. discloses a similar apparatus which uses a heating fluid nozzle (73) that can be provided as part of the substrate holder (10) to apply a heating fluid to the underside of the substrate (2) (par. 58, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a nozzle connected to the substrate supporter to eject the heat transfer fluid towards the lower surface as taught by Ikeda et al. for the apparatus of Higuchi et al. because Ikeda et al. teaches that applying the fluid to the top or bottom of the substrate are functionally equivalent embodiments (par. 165) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 4: Higuchi et al. discloses that the N2 gas is heated gas such that it is hotter than the temperature of the liquid on the surface in order to vaporize the solvent therein (par. 34).
Regarding claims 5-6: Higuchi et al. discloses that the heat transfer medium is nitrogen gas (par. 21).
Regarding claim 7: Higuchi et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the heat transfer medium is a liquid such as deionized water or a solvent component of the liquid chemical. However, Ikeda et al. discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus which uses a heating liquid nozzle (73) to heat the substrate (2) where the heating liquid is deionized water (DIW) (par. 60-61). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a DIW nozzle for the heat transfer medium of Higuchi et al. as taught by Ikeda et al. because Ikeda et al. teaches that heat transfer liquid is functionally equivalent to gas (par. 164) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 8: Higuchi discloses that a heater (14A) is embedded in the substrate chuck (11) (par. 35, figure 2).
Regarding claim 20: Higuchi et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus having a housing around a liquid processing unit (10) which is a treatment space (see figure 1), a spin chuck (11) supporting a wafer (W) substrate for rotation about an axis, a chemical liquid nozzle (20) provided above the spin chuck (11) to supply the substrate (W) supported by the chuck (11) with a chemical liquid (CHM), and a N2 gas nozzle (24) provided at a side of the liquid processing unit (10) to supply nitrogen gas to the substrate (W) (pars. 19-21, figures 1-2), where the N2 gas is heated to a temperature higher than the chemical liquid (CHM) such that it is a heat transfer medium (par. 34).
Higuchi et al. discloses that the N2 gas is heated gas such that it is hotter than the temperature of the liquid on the surface in order to vaporize the solvent therein (par. 34). Higuchi et al. further shows that the gas nozzle (24) is provided above the substrate (W) such that it can be considered at an “upper portion” of the housing containing the liquid processing unit (10) (figure 2). Higuchi et al. also discloses that the heat transfer medium is nitrogen gas (par. 21) and that a heater (14A) is embedded in the substrate chuck (11) (par. 35, figure 2).
Higuchi et al. fails to explicitly disclose a controller, though does generally teach that the various fluids are ejected in discrete timings relative to each other such that control of one is related to control signals from the others (par. 62). However, Ikeda et al. discloses a similar substrate process apparatus which includes a controller (90) such as a computer to control and regulate all of the timing and steps with regards to the particular processing sequence (pars. 25-27, 70, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a controller as taught by Ikeda et al. for the apparatus and process of Higuchi et al. because automating a manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Higuchi et al. further does not show where exactly the N2 nozzle (24) is attached such that a determination can be made that it is provided on the substrate support. However, Ikeda et al. discloses a similar apparatus which uses a heating fluid nozzle (73) that can be provided as part of the substrate holder (10) to apply a heating fluid to the underside of the substrate (2) (par. 58, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a nozzle connected to the substrate supporter to eject the heat transfer fluid towards the lower surface as taught by Ikeda et al. for the apparatus of Higuchi et al. because Ikeda et al. teaches that applying the fluid to the top or bottom of the substrate are functionally equivalent embodiments (par. 165) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claims 21 and 22: Higuchi et al. and Ikeda et al. both disclose rotation drivers with Ikeda et al. disclosing a rotation controller (95) as part of the overall controller (90) which controls the exact rotation number (i.e. rotation speed) of the substrate (2) during various stages of processing, indicating that it can be slowed while the heater (72) applies the heating fluid (par. 109, figure 2), further indicating that it can be stopped during certain processes (par. 153). Higuchi et al. also discloses that some of the steps can occur while rotation is either reduced or stopped entirely (par. 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try various rotation speeds such as stopped, low, and high-speed rotation during application of the heating fluid because Higuchi et al. and Ikeda et al. both teach that those are possible rotation speeds during processing (Higuchi et al. par. 33, Ikeda et al. pars. 109, 153) and trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E). Both Higuchi et al. and Ikeda et al. disclose rotating the wafer while the chemical liquids are applied to the top of the substrate such that it would begin after the application of the heat transfer medium while the substrate’s rotation is stopped.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Higuchi et al. uses heated N2 to dry the substrate and not apply it before application of a chemical liquid, and that the previous Office Action mischaracterized the language of claim 3 and now amended claim 20 which requires the medium to be ejected towards a lower surface of the substrate.
In response:
Regarding the limitations in claim 1, Higuchi et al. does describe using the N2 gas to heat the liquid on the substrate to dry it, but also to then subsequently apply another liquid after the heated gas has been applied, which meets the claim language (pars. 33-36).
Regarding claim 3, the “lower surface” of the substrate was not adequately described in the claim so as to disqualify the upper surface- which would be below the nozzle, and therefore “lower”- of the substrate from meeting this limitation. Regardless, claims 3 and 20 have now been rejected by a different combination of references, rendering these arguments moot. The Ikeda et al. reference does teach a nozzle underneath the substrate and further teaches that it being placed above the substrate is a functionally equivalent embodiment such that modifying Higuchi et al. to have a nozzle below the substrate is clearly obvious as discussed above.
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen Kitt Examiner, Art Unit 1717
11/14/2025
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights