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 Amendment
Amendments submitted on 12/29/25 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 10-12 remain withdrawn. Claims 13-14 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach a heater that heats the treatment liquid flowing through the recovery pipe to a first temperature at the recovery pipe:
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the supply system" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes it has been assumed that the limitation refers to the supply piping system.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergman (EP1481741B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Bergman teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a substrate treatment unit 15 that is capable of treating a substrate 20 with a treatment liquid containing sulfuric acid (reads on claim 5) and ozone dissolved therein (see abstract, paragraph [0037], [0091], [0105], figures 1-2, 6); a recovery tank 50 in which the treatment liquid discharged from the substrate treatment unit 15 may be recovered (see paragraphs [0038], [0041], figures 1-2, 6); a recovery pipe 105 that connects the substrate treatment unit 15 to the recovery tank 50 (see paragraph [0041], figures 1-2, 6); a heater 125 that is capable of heating the treatment liquid to a first temperature in the recovery tank 50 (see paragraph [0046], figures 1-2, 6); a supply piping system 70 that is capable of supplying the treatment liquid from the recovery tank 50 to the substrate treatment unit 15 (see paragraph [0039], figures 1-2, 6); and an ozone gas pipe 80 that supplies ozone gas to the supply piping system 70 to mix the ozone gas in the treatment liquid passing through the supply piping system 70 (see paragraph [0039], figures 1-2, 6).
Regarding claim 6, Bergman teaches the limitations of claim 5. Bergman teaches that the substrate may include a silicon layer with a resist layer formed thereon and removable by sulfuric acid containing liquid with ozone dissolved therein (see abstract, paragraphs [0051]-[0053], [0058], [0074]-[0080], [0091]). Bergman does not explicitly teach that the substrate includes a silicon layer having a major surface, and the resist layer formed on a protection region of the major surface of the silicon layer. However, since all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by Bergman, the particular nature of the substrate that the apparatus is applied to is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman (EP1481741B1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kouichi et al. (JP2006024793A).
Regarding claim 2, Bergman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bergman does not teach a temperature adjuster that adjusts a temperature of the treatment liquid passing through the supply piping system to a second temperature lower than the first temperature. Kouichi et al. teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (see abstract) and a temperature adjuster 38 capable of adjusting a temperature of the treatment liquid passing through the supply piping system 9 to a second temperature lower than a first temperature, so as to ensure that the temperature of the solution is suitable for processing (see page 4 of the translation, figures 2, 5). Since both Bergman and Kouichi et al. teach substrate processing apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a temperature adjuster may be included in the system by Bergman so as to ensure that the temperature of the solution is suitable for processing, as shown to be known and conventional by Kouichi et al.
Regarding claim 3, Bergman and Kouichi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 2. Bergman does not explicitly teach that the first and second temperatures are 150-200C and 80-130C, respectively. However, since all structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art and the modified system is capable of providing solution heating and temperature control as discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 2, the particular temperatures chosen are matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 4, Bergman and Kouichi et al. together teach the limitations of claim 2. Bergman teaches in paragraph [0039] and figures 1-2, 6 that the ozone gas is mixed into the supply piping system 70 immediately upstream of the substrate treatment unit 15. Therefore, in the modified system including a temperature adjuster, it is readily apparent that the temperature adjuster would be disposed upstream of the ozone gas pipe in the supply piping system.
Regarding claim 7, Bergman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bergman does not teach a storage tank. Kouichi et al. teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (see abstract) and a storage tank 31 that stores the treatment liquid; an upstream supply pipe 32 that feeds the treatment liquid from the recovery tank 22 to the storage tank 31; and a downstream supply pipe 9 that supplies the treatment liquid from the storage tank 31 toward the substrate treatment unit 1, thereby allowing for storage and circulation of the treatment liquid (see figures 2, 5 and pages 3-4 of the translation). Since both Bergman and Kouichi et al. teach substrate treatment apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a storage tank may be included downstream of the recovery tank so as to allow for storage and circulation of the treatment liquid, as shown to be known and conventional by Kouichi et al. Hence, in the modified system, it is readily apparent that the downstream pipe downstream from the storage tank would be connected to the ozone gas pipe for mixing with ozone prior to being fed to the substrate treatment unit.
Regarding claim 13, Bergman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bergman also teaches in figures 1-2, 6, 7 and paragraph [0039], [0085]-[0086] a fluid mixer 90/315 that is disposed at a connection point of the ozone gas pipe 80 to the supply piping system 70, and that mixes the ozone gas and the treatment liquid. Bergman does not teach explicitly teach a cooler. Kouichi et al. teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (see abstract) and a temperature adjuster 38 (reads on cooler) capable of adjusting a temperature of the treatment liquid passing through the supply piping system 9 to a second temperature lower than a first temperature, so as to ensure that the temperature of the solution is suitable for processing (see page 4 of the translation, figures 2, 5). Since both Bergman and Kouichi et al. teach substrate processing apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a cooler may be included in the system by Bergman so as to ensure that the temperature of the solution is suitable for processing, as shown to be known and conventional by Kouichi et al. Bergman teaches in paragraph [0039] and figures 1-2, 6 that the ozone gas is mixed into the supply piping system 70 immediately upstream of the substrate treatment unit 15. Therefore, in the modified system including a temperature adjuster, it is readily apparent that the cooler would be disposed upstream of the mixer in the supply piping system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman (EP1481741B1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al. (KR20070066323A).
Regarding claim 8, Bergman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bergman teaches in paragraphs [0041] and [0061] that the concentration of ozone is a variable that affects the rate of removal of resist, and that repeated circulation through the recovery tank 50 may increase the ozone concentration. Bergman does not teach an ozone concentration meter. Lee et al. teaches a substrate treatment apparatus (see abstract) and an ozone concentration meter 16 that detects an ozone concentration of the treatment liquid in the circulation piping 25, so as to ensure decontamination efficiency (see abstract, page 3 of the translation, figure 1). Since Bergman and Lee et al. teach substrate treatment apparatuses that use ozone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an ozone concentration meter may be disposed in the recovery tank of the system by Bergman so as to measure the ozone concentration of the treatment liquid and ensure decontamination efficiency, as shown to be known and conventional by Lee et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 14 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Bergman (EP1481741B1). Bergman fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claim 9 and independent claim 14, including the following limitations of claim 14: “..a controller that controls the switch valve based on a detection result of the ozone concentration meter; wherein the controller opens the switch valve if the concentration detected by the ozone concentration meter is not higher than a predetermined threshold, and closes the switch valve if the detected concentration is higher than the predetermined threshold”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
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 TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711