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 1-7 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 1 is indefinite for the following reasons. In step a, applicant recites “carrying the substrate having the liquid film… from the wet processing apparatus”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear where the substrate is being carried to. It is unclear whether the substrate is being carried from the wet processing apparatus to the supercritical processing apparatus or whether the substrate is being carried to any location prior to being carried to the supercritical processing apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Yamanaka et al. (WO/2021/033588, machine translation).
Re claim 1, Yamanaka et al. teach forming a liquid film on an upper surface of a wafer by a wet processing apparatus (paragraph 93 for example); carrying the substrate having a liquid film into a supercritical processing apparatus by a conveyor device (paragraphs 61-64); processing the substrate by a supercritical fluid (paragraph 64) and blowing gas toward a lower surface of the substrate supported in a horizontal posture by a gas discharger after the formation of the liquid film during which the substrate is outside of the supercritical processing apparatus (paragraphs 48. 50-51, Fig. 5 for example).
Re claim 1, in reference blowing a gas during the operation of carrying the substrate having a liquid film from the wet processing apparatus to carrying the substrate into a supercritical processing apparatus, applicant is directed to paragraphs 5 and 100, which teaches that a gas is supplied during at least a portion of the period from when the substrate with the wet front surface is removed from the liquid processing section to when drying process is started in the drying processing section. Furthermore, paragraph 100 teaches that the first purge process with the gas discharge port 124a is performed while the wafer is being located into the drying processing unit 18. Re claim 2, the limitations are met since after the IPA liquid film is supplied on the wafer, followed by rotation, the liquid processing unit supplied gas from a gas supply path 25a to the back surface of the wafer to prevent the IPA from flowing around to the back surface. Since the gas is blown after the liquid film forming step, and before the transfer to the supercritical drying apparatus, the limitations are met. Re claim 3, the limitations are met since the gas discharge nozzle 124a is positioned on the upper surface of the substrate holder 120, 121 (Fig. 5). In reference to rotation, refer to paragraph 59. Re claim 4, the limitations are met since Yamanaka teaches blowing the gas while rotation of the wafer to form the liquid film and further teaches after the liquid film is formed, rotation is stopped and the substrate is loaded into the drying process unit while the system is being purged with a purge gas (paragraph 100). Re claim 5, refer to Figs. 5 and 12, also refer to paragraphs 199-100, element 124a, for example. Re claim 7, refer to paragraph 51 for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al. (WO/2021/033588, machine translation).
Re claim 6, Yamanaka et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the nozzle provided on the hand of the conveyor device. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yamanaka et al. to include positioning the nozzle at any position which allows the inert gas to flow underneath the wafer to suppress the liquid from flowing around the back surface of the wafer, thereby reducing particle contamination.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
The rejections of the claims as being anticipated and/or unpatentable over Yamanaka et al. is maintained for the reasons recited above. Applicant argues that Yamanaka does not teach blowing a gas towards a lower surface of the substrate for at least a port of the time it takes to carry the film thereon from the wet processing apparatus. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the following reasons. , Applicant is directed to paragraphs 5 and 100, which teaches that a gas is supplied during at least a portion of the period from when the substrate with the wet front surface is removed from the liquid processing section to when drying process is started in the drying processing section. Furthermore, paragraph 100 teaches that the first purge process with the gas discharge port 124a is performed while the wafer is being located into the drying processing unit 18. Additionally, Fig. 5 clearly teaches that the gas is injected from nozzle 124a towards the lower surface of the substrate. Furthermore, blowing gas to the bottom surface of the substrate is neither novel or unobvious in view of the art of record, as the examiner does not consider this patentable subject matter.
13. 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 Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc