DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/01/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are currently pending. Claims 11, 15, and 19 are cancelled.
Claims 3, 5-6, 14, 16-18, and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 17 have been 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 page 8, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the processing fluid having a low dissolved oxygen concentration, the controlling of the concentration of oxygen) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 states “a dissolved oxygen concentration measuring device… configured to measure a dissolved oxygen concentration in the processing liquid.” Hirashita’s concentration meter 28 is capable of measuring the ozone concentration, the processing liquid in the reference just happens to be water. One skilled in the art could replace the water with isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and use the concentration meter 28 to measure the ozone concentration within the processing liquid (IPA).
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takekuma et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0180471 (henceforth referred to as Takekuma) in view of Inoue et al. U.S. Publication 2002/0160625 (henceforth referred to as Inoue), Hirashita KR20220002125 (henceforth referred to as Hirashita), and Hanawa et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0295865 (henceforth referred to as Hanawa).
As to claim 1, (currently amended) Takekuma teaches a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a liquid processing device, having a nozzle (FIGS. 5 and 7 paragraph [0064] discharging nozzles 90a, 90b, and 90c), configured to perform a processing on a substrate by supplying a processing liquid onto the substrate from the nozzle (FIG. 5 paragraph [0059] nozzle 90a discharges a resist solution), the liquid processing device forming a liquid film of the processing liquid on a surface of the substrate as a pre-process for a drying processing of drying the processing liquid (paragraph [0082] rotation of the wafer is to dry the resist film);
a processing liquid supply configured to supply the processing liquid to the nozzle, the processing liquid supply comprising:
a buffer tank (FIG. 7 paragraph [0065] buffer tank 102) configured to temporarily store therein the processing liquid supplied from a processing liquid source (FIG. 7 paragraph [0065] bottle 101 reads on the claimed processing liquid source);
a supply pipe, through which the processing liquid passes from the processing liquid source toward the nozzle, configured to connect the processing liquid source, the buffer tank and the nozzle (FIG. 7 paragraphs [0065] and [0067] pipe 112 connects bottle 101 and buffer tank 102. Pipes 114 and 115 connect nozzles 90a, 90b, and 90c with buffer tank 120).
Takekuma differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a supercritical drying process; a supply controller configured to at least perform a supply and a stop of the supply of the processing liquid to the nozzle; a dissolved oxygen concentration measuring device provided in the supply pipe or in a drain pipe branched off from the supply pipe, and configured to measure a dissolved oxygen concentration in the processing liquid present in the supply pipe or in the processing liquid taken out from the supply pipe through the drain pipe; and a controller configured to determine whether or not to supply the processing liquid from the nozzle to the substrate based on a measurement result of the dissolved oxygen concentration measuring device, and configured to control the supply controller based on a determination result, wherein the processing liquid is isopropyl alcohol (IPA).
Inoue teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0025] substrate processing system). Inoue teaches supercritical drying (paragraph [0028] drying apparatus 2 is adapted to dry wafers 9 with the use of a supercritical fluid).
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 substrate processing device as taught by Takekuma with a supercritical processing device as taught by Inoue as supercritical drying is advantageous in drying semiconductor substrates as it will reduce damage to the wafers because of no capillary force (paragraph [0009]).
Hirashita teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 3 paragraph [0039] substrate processing device 1). Hirashita teaches a supply controller configured to at least perform a supply and a stop of the supply of the processing liquid to the nozzle (FIG. 3 paragraph [0048] valve 46, which reads on the claimed supply controller, switches the supply and stop of the ozone water flowing in the pipe 105);
a dissolved oxygen concentration measuring device provided in the supply pipe (FIG. 3 paragraph [0048] pipe 105 has a concentration meter 28) or in a drain pipe branched off from the supply pipe, and configured to measure a dissolved oxygen concentration in the processing liquid present in the supply pipe (FIG. 3 paragraph [0048] concentration meter 28 for measuring the ozone concentration flowing in the pipe 105) or in the processing liquid taken out from the supply pipe through the drain pipe; and
a controller configured to determine whether or not to supply the processing liquid from the nozzle to the substrate based on a measurement result of the dissolved oxygen concentration measuring device, and configured to control the supply controller based on a determination result (paragraph [0088] in the case where the ozone water in the pipe 105 does not have the desired ozone concentration, the valve 46 is closed under the control unit 90).
It is commonplace to clean a wafer prior to applying a resist. 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 substrate processing device as taught by Takekuma with a cleaning process as taught by Hirashita. Other teachings of Hirashita include a dissolved oxygen concentration measuring device. It would have been obvious to add an oxygen concentration measuring device to a pipe in order to monitor the amount of oxygen within the pipe.
Hanawa teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0056] substrate treating apparatus 1). Hanawa teaches the processing liquid is isopropyl alcohol (IPA) (paragraph [0062] IPA supply means 31).
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 substrate processing device as taught by Takekuma with isopropyl alcohol as taught by Hanawa. It is known in the art to use isopropyl alcohol to reduce water spots on the surface of a wafer.
As to claim 9, (original) Hanawa teaches the buffer tank comprises a tank main body storing the processing liquid therein (FIG. 3B paragraph [0073] process liquid storing tank 271), and an inert gas supply port (FIG. 3B paragraph [0073] pipe 273) and a processing liquid discharge port provided in the tank main body (FIG. 3B paragraph [0075] pipe 25), and the buffer tank is configured to discharge the processing liquid from the processing liquid discharge port by supplying an inert gas from the inert gas supply port to pressurize an internal space of the tank main body (paragraph [0073] pressurization part 274 uses nitrogen gas to pressurize the interior of the process liquid storing tank 271).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify substrate processing device as taught by Takekuma with an inert gas supply port to pressurize a tank as taught by Hanawa. It is known in the art to supply an inert gas to a tank so that the liquid can be discharged at a pressure (paragraph [0070]).
Claims 2, 4, 7-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takekuma et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0180471 (henceforth referred to as Takekuma), Inoue et al. U.S. Publication 2002/0160625 (henceforth referred to as Inoue), Hirashita KR20220002125 (henceforth referred to as Hirashita), and Hanawa et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0295865 (henceforth referred to as Hanawa) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gotoh et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0191551 (henceforth referred to as Gotoh).
As to claim 2, (original) Takekuma, Inoue, Hirashita, and Hanawa differs from the instant claim in failing to teach an enclosing member configured to surround a member, in which the processing liquid is present, in at least a portion of a section between the processing liquid source and the nozzle; and an inert gas supply configured to supply an inert gas to an inside of the enclosing member.
Gotoh teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIGS. 3 and 4 paragraph [0042] semiconductor wafer clean processing system). Gotoh teaches an enclosing member (FIG. 4 paragraph [0042] housing 310) configured to surround a member, in which the processing liquid is present, in at least a portion of a section between the processing liquid source and the nozzle (FIGS. 4 and 6 cleaning chambers 320 and 330 are arranged in a housing 310. Paragraph [0045] chemical process liquid 327 is being used in the system); and an inert gas supply configured to supply an inert gas to an inside of the enclosing member (FIG. 4 paragraph [0042] HEPA filter 350 is provided for feeding nitrogen gas at a constant flow rate during the processing so that a shower of nitrogen gas is fed into the housing from above to downward during the processing.).
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 substrate processing device as taught by Takekuma, Inoue, Hirashita, and Hanawa with an enclosing member and an inert gas supply as taught by Gotoh. It is known in the art to process the wafer in a nitrogen gas atmosphere as to prevent oxides from forming on the wafer (paragraph [0008]).
As to claim 4, (original) The combination of Takekuma and Gotoh further teach the enclosing member is configured to surround, in at least the portion of the section between the processing liquid source and the nozzle (Gotoh FIGS. 4 and 6 the housing 310 surrounds the nozzle 328 and at least a portion of the piping from liquid source 327), the pipe and a device provided in the pipe altogether, and the device is one or more devices selected from a group consisting of a valve, a filter (Takekuma FIG. 7 paragraph [0067] filter 104 is on pipe 115), a flowmeter, and a temperature controller.
As to claim 7, (original) Takekuma further teaches a circulation line connected to the buffer tank (FIG. 7 paragraph [0069] recovery pipe 127), wherein the processing liquid is supplied to the nozzle through a branch supply line branched off from the circulation line (FIG. 7 pipe 115 is branched off from pipe 129), and the circulation line and the branch supply line constitute a part of the pipe (the circulation line 127 and 129 and the pipe 115 constitute a part of the supply pipe 114).
As to claim 8, (original) Hirashita further teaches the dissolved oxygen concentration measuring device is provided in at least one of the drain pipe constituting a drain line branched off from a pipe between the processing liquid source and the buffer tank, the supply pipe constituting the branch supply line (FIG. 3 paragraph [0048] concentration meter 28 for measuring the ozone concentration is on pipe 105), or the drain pipe constituting a drain line branched off from a return line which is branched off from the branch supply line to return the processing liquid into the circulation line.
As to claim 12, (original) Gotoh further teaches the inert gas is a nitrogen gas (paragraph [0013] the inert gas is nitrogen gas).
As to claim 13, (original) Hanawa teaches the processing liquid is isopropyl alcohol (IPA) (paragraph [0062] IPA supply means 31).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takekuma et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0180471 (henceforth referred to as Takekuma), Inoue et al. U.S. Publication 2002/0160625 (henceforth referred to as Inoue), Hirashita KR20220002125 (henceforth referred to as Hirashita), Hanawa et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0295865 (henceforth referred to as Hanawa), and Gotoh et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0191551 (henceforth referred to as Gotoh) as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of and Takano U.S. Publication 2002/0020344.
As to claim 10, (original) Gotoh and Inoue further teach a supercritical processing device configured to dry, with a supercritical fluid, the substrate (Inoue paragraph [0028] drying apparatus 2 is adapted to dry wafers 9 with the use of a supercritical fluid), the liquid film of the processing liquid being formed on the surface of the substrate by the liquid processing device (Inoue paragraph [0039] drying apparatus 2 dries the wafer after the wet processing apparatus is complete);
a transfer device configured to transfer the substrate from the liquid processing device to the supercritical processing device (Gotoh FIG. 4 paragraph [0042] transfer robot 360 transfers the wafers between the process chambers 320, 330, and 340).
Takekuma, Inoue, Hirashita, Hanawa and Gotoh differs from the instant claim in failing to teach an additional inert gas supply configured to supply an inert gas into a space through which the substrate passes when the substrate is transferred from the liquid processing device to the supercritical processing device, to set the space into an inert gas atmosphere.
Gotoh teaches an inert gas supply configured to supply an inert gas into a space through which the substrate passes when the substrate is transferred from the liquid processing device to the supercritical processing device, to set the space into an inert gas atmosphere (paragraph [0042] filter 350 is provided for feeding nitrogen gas into the housing 310. The housing includes the space in which the wafer is transferred).
Gotoh does not teach an additional inert gas supply. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. It is old and well known in the art to duplicate components to reduce time of a process or operation, for the process or operation to be at least twice as effective with respect to a single device component, due to size/ space design criteria, or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts.
Takano teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0036] semiconductor manufacturing apparatus). Takano teaches an additional inert gas supply configured to supply an inert gas into a space through which the substrate passes, to set the space into an inert gas atmosphere (paragraph [0038] nitrogen gas supply line 5 supplies nitrogen to the transfer chamber 3).
The combination of Gotoh, Inoue, and Takano would teach the inert gas is suppled in the space (Takano paragraph [0038] nitrogen gas supply line 5 supplies nitrogen to the transfer chamber 3) as the substrate is transferred from the liquid processing device (Gotoh FIG. 4 paragraph [0042] clean process chamber 320) to the supercritical processing device (Inoue paragraph [0028] drying apparatus 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 substrate processing device as taught by Takekuma, Inoue, Hirashita, Hanawa and Gotoh with an additional inert gas supply as taught by Takano. Having the inert gas being supplied to all areas of a processing system can keep the insides of the chambers in a clean state, which would reduce contamination on the wafer (paragraph [0038]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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