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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-6 and 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species I, II and IV-IX, Figures 1-5 and 7-13, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/09/2025. The dependent claim 10 is directed to Species IV, Figures 1-3 and 7, since wherein the first direction change member (240, fig. 7, [0079-86]) includes: a vertical surface (241, fig. 7, [0079-86]) extending along a vertical direction (fig. 7), including a height position (fig. 7) at which the substrate (W, fig. 7, [0079-86]) is provided; and an upper inclined surface (242, fig. 7, [0079-86]) extending upward from an upper end of the vertical surface (241, fig. 7, [0079-86]) in a direction away from the substrate (W, fig. 7, [0079-86]); and a lower inclined surface (243, fig. 7, [0079-86]) extending downward from a lower end of the vertical surface (241, fig. 7, [0079-86]) in the direction away from the substrate (W, fig. 7, [0079-86]) which is found in Species IV. Therefore, claim 10 was withdrawn from consideration. The dependent claim 15 is directed to Species IX, Figures 1, 3 and 12-13, since wherein the fluid supplier (430, figs. 12, 13, [0103-0116]) includes a flow velocity distribution changer (431, figs. 12, 13, [0103-0116]) configured to make a flow velocity of a central portion in a horizontal direction in the flow of the supercritical processing fluid, which is supplied radially outward from the substrate held by the holder, smaller than flow velocities of both end portions in the horizontal direction in the flow ([0103-0116]) which is found in Species IX. Therefore, claims 15-18 were withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the substrate” in line 2. Please amend to --- a substrate ---.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “are” in line 3. Please amend to --- is ---.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “are” in line 9. Please amend to --- is ---.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “are” in line 3. Please amend to --- is ---.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “member” in line 3. Please amend to --- member. ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The limitation “a first direction change member configured to …” in claims 1 and 19 which has been interpreted to mean or include a plate-shaped member having a V shape tapering from the positive Y-axis direction to the negative Y-axis direction in a vertical cross-section orthogonal to the X-axis direction. (paragraph [0073], Fig. 6, of Specification of the instant application)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
It is noted that independent claim 1 recites “… wherein the fluid supplier includes a first direction change member configured to change a flow of the supercritical processing fluid which is supplied radially outward from the substrate held by the holder, in a direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate.” (UNDERLINE emphasis added) and the independent claim 19 recites “… a first direction change member configured to change a flow of the supercritical processing fluid, supplied radially outward from the substrate held by the holder, in a direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate, …”. (UNDERLINE emphasis added).
The plain meaning of something being supplied “radially outward,” means moving or extending away from a central point in all directions, like the spokes of a wheel. In this case, claims 1 and 19 require that the claimed fluid is supplied “radially outward” from the substrate (i.e. wafer W).
However, Figures 1-2 and 6 of the instant application rather show that the first direction change member 132/230 is offset from the substrate W, and is configured to change a flow of the supercritical processing fluid which is supplied outwardly toward the substrate “W” held by the holder. So, it is unclear how the first direction change member 132/230 is configured to change a flow of the supercritical processing fluid which is supplied radially outward from the substrate held by the holder based on the plain meaning of “radially outward,” as noted above. The Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0005 repeats this limitation, verbatim, in the last 4 lines but offers no additional context for clarity. While paragraph 0044 discloses “Each of the discharge ports 131c is provided radially outward from the substrate W held at the holding position,” claims 1 and 19 differ since the “radially outward” feature is directed to the fluid coming from the substrate W.
In order to expedite the prosecution, the Office Action will take the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification and what the drawings show, and assumes the applicant meant a first direction change member being configured to change a flow of the supercritical processing fluid which is supplied radially outwardly toward the substrate held by the holder, based on the aforementioned limitations in claims 1 and 19.
If the Applicant indeed meant to claim that the claimed fluid is being supplied radially outward from the substrate, per se, based on the plain and ordinary meaning of “radially outward,” then the Applicant should confirm in the next reply. It’s noted that if this is confirmed by the Applicant, then 1) a drawing objection to the claims may likely follow since the claims are reciting something not shown in the drawings, and 2) a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) may be necessary since there appears to be a lack of sufficient written description in the Applicant’s disclosure that support this feature.
Examiner recommends the Applicant to amend these limitations in claims 1 and 19 so that what’s being claimed is more consistently/clearly matching to what’s actually disclosed in the Applicant’s specification.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuoka et al. (US 7,797,855; hereinafter Fukuoka).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
454
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
398
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fukuoka shows a substrate processing apparatus (2, fig. 2), comprising:
a processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) in which the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) is accommodated;
a holder (51A, 51B, figs. 1-5) configured to hold the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) in a horizontal posture at a holding position (as shown in fig. 5) inside the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5); and
a fluid supplier (23, 24a, figs. 2, 5) configured to supply, into the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5), a supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) for drying the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) to which a liquid adheres (coating liquid, col. 5, lines 60-65),
wherein the fluid supplier (23, 24a, figs. 2, 5) includes a first direction change member (angled plate of item 23 where item 23a disposed on, figs. 3, 5) configured to change a flow of the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) which is supplied radially outward from (which is supplied radially outwardly toward) the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) held by the holder (51A, 51B, figs. 1-5), in a direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) (as shown in fig. 5, the fluid exits the item 23a at an upward direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate W which is the same as the fluid of the instant application exits the item 231h at an upward direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate W, see fig. 6 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuoka shows wherein the first direction change member (angled plate of item 23 where item 23a disposed on, figs. 3, 5) is a plate-shaped member (as shown in figs. 3, 5) having a plurality of holes (23a, figs. 3, 5) through which the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) flows.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Okura et al. (US 2009/0084409; hereinafter Okura).
PNG
media_image5.png
468
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fukuoka discloses further comprising a controller (control unit, col. 10, lines 45-57),
wherein the controller (control unit, col. 10, lines 45-57) is configured to execute an operation of discharging the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) from the fluid supplier (23, 24a, figs. 2, 5) into the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5).
Fukuoka does not disclose the controller is configured to execute an operation of discharging the supercritical processing fluid from the fluid supplier into the processing container when increasing a pressure in an interior of the processing container.
Okura teaches the controller (Okura, 4, fig. 1) is configured to execute an operation of discharging the supercritical processing fluid (Okura, inert gas, nitrogen, [0161], [0165]) from the fluid supplier (Okura, 5, fig. 1) into the processing container (Okura, 3, fig. 1 ) when increasing a pressure in an interior of the processing container (Okura, 3, fig. 1) (Okura recites “… a step for introducing inert gas into the container and discharging gas in the container when the pressure in the container is increased to a predetermined pressure level, …”, paragraph [0161]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus of Fukuoka with the controller being configured to execute an operation of discharging the supercritical processing fluid from the fluid supplier into the processing container when increasing a pressure in an interior of the processing container, as taught by Okura, for effectively removing contamination materials or unwanted particles from surfaces of the substrate which would result in producing a high quality product or substrate and thus a production scrap is reduced. Consequently, a manufacturing cost is reduced and thus benefits the consumer.
Regarding claim 3, Fukuoka as modified discloses wherein the controller (control unit, col. 10, lines 45-57) is configured to execute the operation of discharging the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) from the fluid supplier (23, 24a, figs. 2, 5) toward the interior of the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) when simultaneously performing supplying the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) into the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) and discharging the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) from the interior of the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) (col. 11, lines 20-45).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka et al. (US 7,797,855; hereinafter Fukuoka) in view of Okura et al. (US 2009/0084409; hereinafter Okura).
Regarding claim 19, Fukuoka discloses a substrate processing method used in a substrate processing apparatus (2, fig. 2),
wherein the substrate processing apparatus (2, fig. 2) includes:
a processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) in which a substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) is accommodated;
a holder (51A, 51B, figs. 1-5) configured to hold the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) in a horizontal posture at a holding position inside the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5); and
a fluid supplier (23, 24a, figs. 2, 5) configured to supply, into the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5), a supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) for drying the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) to which a liquid adheres (coating liquid, col. 5, lines 60-65), and including a first direction change member (angled plate of item 23 where item 23a disposed on, figs. 3, 5) configured to change a flow of the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5), supplied radially outward from (supplied radially outwardly toward) the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) held by the holder (51A, 51B, figs. 1-5), in a direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate (“W”, figs. 2, 3, 5) (as shown in fig. 5, the fluid exits the item 23a at an upward direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate W which is the same as the fluid of the instant application exits the item 231h at an upward direction that does not come in contact with a radial outer end of the substrate W, see fig. 6 of the instant application),
the substrate processing method comprises:
discharging the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) from the fluid supplier (23, 24a, figs. 2, 5) into the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5).
Fukuoka does not disclose discharging the supercritical processing fluid from the fluid supplier into the processing container when increasing a pressure in an interior of the processing container.
Okura teaches discharging the supercritical processing fluid (Okura, inert gas, nitrogen, [0161], [0165]) from the fluid supplier (Okura, 5, fig. 1) into the processing container (Okura, 3, fig. 1 ) when increasing a pressure in an interior of the processing container (Okura, 3, fig. 1 ) (Okura recites “… a step for introducing inert gas into the container and discharging gas in the container when the pressure in the container is increased to a predetermined pressure level, …”, paragraph [0161]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the substrate processing method of Fukuoka with the method step of discharging the supercritical processing fluid from the fluid supplier into the processing container when increasing a pressure in an interior of the processing container, as taught by Okura, for effectively removing contamination materials or unwanted particles from surfaces of the substrate which would result in producing a high quality product or substrate and thus a production scrap is reduced. Consequently, a manufacturing cost is reduced and thus benefits the consumer.
Regarding claim 20, Fukuoka as modified discloses further comprising: discharging the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) from the fluid supplier (23, 24a, figs. 2, 5) toward the interior of the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) when simultaneously performing supplying the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) into the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) and discharging the supercritical processing fluid (inert gas or nitrogen gas from item 24, col. 8, lines 34-38, figs. 2, 5) from the interior of the processing container (20, figs. 2, 3, 5) (col. 11, lines 20-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the substrate processing apparatus of Claim 4, wherein the plate-shaped member has a V shape tapering toward the substrate in a vertical cross-section, and wherein the plurality of holes are provided at a height above and below a height position at which the substrate is provided.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Fukuoka discloses “The substrate processing apparatus of Claim 4”. However, Fukuoka does not disclose “wherein the plate-shaped member has a V shape tapering toward the substrate in a vertical cross-section, and wherein the plurality of holes are provided at a height above and below a height position at which the substrate is provided”.
Therefore, allowance of claims 7-9 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the plate-shaped member has a V shape tapering toward the substrate in a vertical cross-section, and wherein the plurality of holes are provided at a height above and below a height position at which the substrate is provided” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claims 7-9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 Hoang can be reached at 5712726460. 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.
/BAO D NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762