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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn and cancelled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/23/26.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Drumm et al (US 2004/0168709A1).
As to claim 1, Drumm et al teaches (see Fig 3) a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (16) providing a processing space in which a process is performed on a substrate coated with a processing liquid or an organic solvent using a fluid in a supercritical state (see para [0023] and [0026]); and a process detecting unit (sensor 21 in communication with process control 19) capable of calculating at least one parameter of the fluid discharged from the chamber (16) and detecting at least one of a progress of a process and an end point of the process for the substrate.
As to claim 2 in Drumm et al the parameter can include a dielectric constant of the fluid (see claim 10 and para [0003-0004]).
As to claim 6, Drumm et al teaches the chamber (16) includes at least one fluid discharge line from which the fluid in the chamber is discharged, and the process detecting unit (21) is provided in a section in which the fluid in the fluid discharge line is maintained in a supercritical state (Fig 4 and para [0026] the fluid in the chamber 16 or effluent exiting the chamber).
Regarding claim 7, in Drumm et al (see Figs 3-4) the chamber (16) includes at least one fluid discharge line from which the fluid in the chamber is discharged (see para [0026]), a check valve (18) provided on the fluid discharge line, and a pressure control valve (valve 7 in communication with process control 19) provided behind the check valve in the fluid discharge line and capable of controlling a pressure inside the chamber, and the process detecting unit (21) is provided in front of the pressure control valve in the fluid discharge line.
As to claim 8, in Drumm et al the process detecting unit (21) is provided between the check valve (18) and the pressure control valve (valve 7 in communication with process control 19) in the fluid discharge line.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by KR-10-2019-0126140.
As to claim 1, KR’140 teaches (see Figs 4, 6 and Abstract) a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (drying processing unit 17) providing a processing space in which a process is performed on a substrate coated with a processing liquid or an organic solvent using a fluid in a supercritical state (see Abstract); and a process detecting unit (53e, 53f, 544, 54g) in communication with control unit 19) capable of calculating at least one parameter of the fluid discharged from the chamber (17) and detecting at least one of a progress of a process and an end point of the process for the substrate.
Regarding claim 6, KR’140 teaches (see Fig 4) the chamber (drying processing unit 17) including at least one fluid discharge line (L2) from which the fluid in the chamber is discharged, and the process detecting unit (53e, 53f, 544, 54g) is provided in a section in which the fluid in the fluid discharge line is maintained in a supercritical state.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drumm et al (US 2004/0168709A1) in view of CN 1757445 A
In Drumm et al a processing fluid does not contain organic solvent (containing inorganic solvent) and the process for the substrate can be completed when a calculated value of the dielectric constant of the fluid reaches to a predetermined reference value (since Drumm et al’s apparatus for controlling and detecting of semiconductor wafers cleaned with supercritical fluids structurally meet the claimed invention and the apparatus can operate the process limitation) but lacks specifically teaching detecting unit calculates the dielectric constant of the fluid by measuring at least one of a capacitance, reflection coefficient, and resonance frequency of the fluid. However, detecting means measuring at least capacitance of a dielectric constant and calculating value of the dielectric constant of the fluid as claimed are taught in CN’445 (see English Translation on page 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the dielectric constant of the fluid by measuring at least one of a capacitance, reflection coefficient, and resonance frequency of the fluid in Drumm et al in order to make the low dielectric film suitable for integrated circuit (IC) manufacturing, it is desirable that film having a controlled impurity content as taught by CN’445 (see English Translation on page 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-10-2019-0126140 in view of Bennett et al (US 2005/0262944A1).
KR’140 teaches (see Fig 4) the process detecting unit includes a sensor (53e, 53f, 544, 54g) located in the fluid discharge line, and a calculator (control unit 19) can calculate fluid characteristics of the fluid with a measurement value transmitted from the sensor, but a sensor including external and internal electrodes measuring electric capacity as claimed is not taught. However, Bennett et al teaches a sensing device conditions of fluids including supercritical fluid, the device (see para [0126] and Fig 9A) having a system control unit capable of controlling/calculating fluid characteristics including a dielectric constant and a sensor includes an external electrode providing a flow channel in which the fluid flows and an internal electrode provided inside the flow channel, and measures electric capacity of the fluid flowing between the external electrode and the internal electrode (see paragraph [0057], [0113], [0134], [0146] and [0155]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a sensor including external and internal electrodes measuring electric capacity as claimed in KR’140 for the benefit of sensing ionic fluids as taught by Bennett et al (see para [00155]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 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, 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights