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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment filed November 26, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 2 and 4 are canceled, claims 10-11 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 3 and 5-9 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on December 19, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 19, 2024.
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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “processing unit(s)” in claims 8 and 9.
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 does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita et al (US 2016/0190040) in view of Tanaka et al (US 2019/0041755), Hongo et al (US 2002/0006876), Nanba et al (US 2018/0269076), Iwase et al (US 2006/0272676) and Fujita (US 2018/0204745), ETHER alone OR further in view of Kiyotomi (US 2019/0155158),
Claims 1, 6, 7: Iwashita teaches a substrate processing method (note 0009), where the method includes preparing a substrate having a first metal layer (which first metal layer can be considered seed layer 24 of Cu, for example, also as desired by claim 6) formed on a front surface thereof (note figures 2D, 4, 0079-0081). Furthermore, a second metal layer 27 of copper (which is desired for the second layer as in claim 7) is precipitated on the front surface using the first metal layer 25 as a seed/catalyst (note figure 3A, 0081, 0087-0088). Iwashita indicates how the first metal layer 24 can be applied by electroless plating with the apparatus of figure 4, which would apply plating from a nozzle onto a wafer substrate onto a substrate that rotates (note 0079-0081, 0035-0041, figures 4, 5). The system of Iwashita further has movement of the substrate wafer with the applied first metal layer 24 before the second metal layer applied, note 0082, 0085, 0025, and the process is used for semiconductor devices on semiconductor wafers, for example (note 0003, 0024).
Iwashita does not specifically provide removing at least part of the first metal layer attached to a bevel portion of the substrate before applying the second metal layer.
However, Tanaka describes substrate processing for semiconductor substrates (note 0054), where the processing can including providing coating using coating liquids from nozzles to apply coating to a rotating wafer substrate, where the coating applied can be a metal (note 0062-0067, 0007), where it is noted that metal coatings can undesirably adhere to an end portion (periphery) or back surface of a substate, which can contaminate the processing apparatus, including transport mechanism (note 0004-0006), where Tanaka provides that after the metal coating applied to the surface of the substrate, metal can be removed from the peripheral portion of the substrate, so that even when a transport arm grips the peripheral portion of the substrate, generation of particles can be avoided and the substrate processing apparatus can be prevented from becoming contaminated (note 0066-0068, claim 15). In the figures (note figure 6, figure 7), the substate (W) is shown with a beveled end portion/peripheral section between the top surface of the substrate and the back surface of the wafer substrate. It is described that metal removing liquid can be provided to the periphery of the substrate for cleaning by nozzles such as nozzle 8 or 10a or 45 shown above the substrate, and to the rear of the substrate by nozzle 7 or 46 located below the substrate, where the nozzle 7 or 46 acts to clean and remove metal from the back surface of the substrate (note figures 6, 7, 13 and 0086-0090, 0147) and the system removes metal from the peripheral portion and back surface (note 0147). Tanaka also indicates how the substrate can be cleaned with pure water or the like (so rinse liquid) after metal removal treatment (note 0147), and it is described how substrate cleaning with pure water can include the back portion and peripheral portion and drying (note 0075), and it is described how rinsing the back portion can include discharge from nozzles (note 0145). Tanaka describes how acid or alkaline metal removal liquid can be used which can dissolve a metallic component (so understood to etch it) (note 0093, 0090, 0147).
Furthermore, Hongo describes substrate processing for semiconductor substrates (note 0002), where the processing can include providing electroless coating using coating liquids from nozzles (showerheads) to apply coating to a rotating wafer substrate, where the coating applied can be a metal, such as a copper seed layer (note 0272, 0273, 0286-0288, figure 36). It is further noted that when plating with copper (seed layer 107), for example, when coating the entire surface, it is common that the seed layer is deposited on the edge and resides in the bevel (outer peripheral portion) (so attached to the bevel/peripheral portion) of the semiconductor substrate W (note 0011, figure 2), and this copper can cause problems, so it is necessary to remove the remaining unnecessary copper completely from the substrate before film deposition, so the remaining deposited copper on the peripheral portion of the substrate should be completely removed immediately after the copper deposition process, where the outer peripheral portion includes an edge and a bevel of the substrate W (note 0012). Hongo describes how after the seed layer deposition, a cleaning liquid can be supplied to the plated surface, and also how the substrate can be treated to edge etching and backside cleaning to remove copper or the like formed on the upper surface and edge surface of the wafer substrate in the peripheral portion is removed (note figure 37, 0291-0294).
Nanba further describes how it can be desired to wet etch a film formed on a peripheral portion of the substrate, where the removed material can include SiGe, for example, and where the etching removes material from a bevel edge of the peripheral portion (note figure 3, 4, 0006), where two nozzles 41, 41’ can be provided to provide chemical removal material to the peripheral/bevel portion of the substrate, where 41 is above the substrate and 41’ below the substrate and applying the material to the back of the substrate to the bevel portion (note figure 6, 0035, 0042, 0050, 0054).
Iwase describes how cleaning liquid and rinse liquid can be provided in sequence to the back of a wafer substrate using a single device 40 that sprays the liquid to the substrate (note figures 1, 9, 10, 0028, 0048-0050).
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 Iwashita to provide a metal removal treatment on a peripheral portion of the substrate to remove at least a part of the first metal layer formed on a peripheral portion/attached to a bevel portion of the substrate as described by Tanaka, Hongo and Nanba before further treatment, including the application of the second metal layer, to help prevent contamination of the apparatus system, since Iwashita provides a first metal layer on a rotating semiconductor substrate wafer, and then provides transport of the substrate in the system and then a further second metal layer, where Tanaka indicates that when providing a metal layer on a rotating semiconductor wafer where there is to be further transport of the wafer, it is desirable to provide a metal removal treatment that can be etching on the peripheral portion of the substrate before further transport to help prevent contamination of the apparatus, including the transport mechanism, where Hongo indicates that it is conventional when semiconductor processing with a wafer substrate that the peripheral portion includes a bevel portion of the substrate and where seed layers of copper for example, can be applied by electroless plating, and seed layers end up residing in/attached to the bevel portion of the substrate and need to be removed, and Nanba describes how etching removal treatment of a film material on a periphery of a substrate wafer can include removal at the bevel portion, and thus the process of removal of Tanaka would also desirably be provided for removing attached metal/copper from a bevel portion of the substrate. Additionally, as to the removing of the first metal layer performed by discharging a removing liquid configured to remove the first metal layer to a rear surface of the substrate, this would be suggested Nanba with an expectation of predictably acceptable removal, where Tanaka indicates removal liquid to provide etching for the periphery can be provided from a nozzle (such as nozzle 8, 45) above the substrate, and Nanba indicates that when removing a film of material from a wafer substrate including the bevel by etching, removing liquid can be discharged from the top of the wafer (noting nozzle 41) and also from a position below the wafer to discharge the removing liquid to a rear surface of the substrate (noting nozzle 41’). Additionally, as to further cleaning the substrate by discharging a rinse liquid to a rear surface of the substrate after the removing of at least part of the first metal layer, and drying the surface of the substrate after the cleaning of the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide this as suggested by Tanaka, Nanba, and Iwase, with an expectation of providing desirable finishing of the process and removal of the removing etching liquid, since Tanaka indicates how the substrate can be cleaned with pure water or the like (so rinse liquid) after metal removal treatment, and it is described how substrate cleaning with pure water can include the back portion and peripheral portion and drying, note 0147, 0075, and it is described how rinsing the back portion can include discharge from nozzles (note 0145), Nanba further describes rinsing after the etching/removing and then drying (note 0065 to remove the etching/removing liquid from the substrate, 0067), and note Iwase describing rinsing after chemical treatment liquid applied to remove the chemical solution after treatment (note 0048-0049). This cleaning and drying would be suggested to occur before applying the second metal layer as part of the removing and cleaning process to occur before transport.
As to the removing of at least part of the first layer including providing the removing liquid discharged from a first nozzle to a position inward of the bevel portion on the rear surface of the substrate and from a second nozzle to the bevel portion on the rear surface of the substrate, and in the cleaning of the substrate the rinse liquid is discharged from the first nozzle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwashita in view of Tanaka, Hongo, Nanba and Iwase to provide the two nozzle use as claimed as suggested by Tanaka and Nanba, for example, to provide a desirable treatment of both the bevel portion and back surface, where from the combination of references as discussed above, metal removal treatment with metal removing liquid is desired on the bevel of the periphery of the substrate and also at the back surface, and Tanaka teaches providing a nozzle (note 7 or 46) for specifically back surface treatment to remove metal material that has flown with the coating liquid to the back surface of the substrate (note 0090), and therefore to provide a first nozzle inward of the bevel portion would be suggested to cover the entire back surface, and Nanba would further suggest providing a second nozzle (as in nozzle 41’) to be specifically directed to a bevel portion on the rear of the substrate since this is provided to supply metal removing liquid to the peripheral/bevel portion of the substrate (note 0042), and by using two nozzles the desired placement of treatment for both would be provided; and further as to providing the rinse liquid also discharged from the first nozzle, this would be further suggested by Iwase with an expectation of efficiently providing desired rinse liquid, since Tanaka also wants to supply rinse liquid to the substrate, and Iwase indicates how a rinse liquid can be applied to a back surface of a substrate from a same device that provides treatment liquid to the back surface of the substrate by spraying, and it would be at least suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the device would be a nozzle, as Tanaka, for example, indicates to use a nozzle to discharge/spray liquid to a substrate surface.
Additionally, as to in cleaning the substrate, the rinse liquid is discharged only from the first nozzle and not discharged from the second nozzle,
Fujita describes a substrate processing method, where a substrate can be provided with a first layer (film F) formed on a first surface thereof (where the first layer can be metal such as aluminum, for example) (note figure 2, 0028, 0029, 0058). Furthermore, it can be desired to remove at least part of the first layer attached to a peripheral portion of the substrate, by discharging a removing (chemical) liquid configured to remove at least part of the first layer (note 0003, 0059). The substrate is cleaned by discharging a rinse liquid to the rear surface of the substrate after the removing of at least part of the first layer (note 0060, figure 6). For removing the first layer, removing (chemical) liquid can be discharged from one of multiple nozzles (note N9, N10) to the rear surface of the substrate, with one nozzle located more inward of the peripheral portion of the substrate, and since the liquid ejected upwards, it is understood that the liquid discharged from the nozzle more inward will be more inward to the substrate than the liquid discharged from the nozzle more outward (note figures 2, 3, 4B, 0059) and for discharging the rinse liquid for cleaning multiple nozzles can be provided (note N11, N12) to the rear surface of the substrate, with one nozzle located more inward of the peripheral portion of the substrate, and since the liquid ejected upwards, it is understood that the liquid discharged from the nozzle more inward will be more inward to the substrate than the liquid discharged from the nozzle more outward, and discharge can be from at least one of these nozzles (note figures 2, 3, 4B, 0060-0061). It is indicted that liquid flow, based on the rotation speed of the wafer substrate, can be provided to flow over the substrate to the peripheral part of the substrate, which would help rinse the substrate and apparatus cup (note 0062-0065, figure 7C),
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 Iwashita in view of Tanaka, Hongo, Nanba and Iwase to provide that the rinse liquid is only ejected from the first nozzle (in the inward position) as claimed as suggested by Fujita with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since the combination of references desires to clean the back side surface and the bevel portion, and Iwase suggests how rinse liquid can be applied to a back surface of a substrate from the same device/nozzle use to provide treatment liquid as discussed above, and Fujita indicates how a rinse liquid flow can be provided from one or both of rinse liquid supplying nozzles and rotation speed of the wafer substrate affects the flow of the liquid and how much surface of the substrate covered, and since only one nozzle is required for flow coverage, it would have been predictably acceptable to simply provide the rinse liquid from the first nozzle to get adequate coverage of the rear and periphery/bevel of the substrate.
Optionally, further using Kiyotomi, as to the use of the first and second nozzles as claimed, Kiyotomi further describes how after a film is applied to a substrate wafer, it can be desired to remove film material applied to the bevel periphery and back surface of the wafer. It is described to provide a removing liquid from a first rear surface nozzle (28) to a position inward of the bevel portion of the rear surface of the substrate, and the removing liquid also from a second rear surface nozzle (27) to the bevel portion on the rear surface of the substrate to provide a desirable removal of film material from both these surfaces (note figures 5, 6, 0041, 0046, 0048, 0051, 0053, where the removing liquid can be the same (solvent) for each nozzle- 0049). 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 Iwashita in view of Tanaka, Hongo, Nanbam Iwase and Fujita to provide the use of the first and second nozzles to provide removing liquid as claimed and the first nozzle to supply rinse liquid as suggested by Kiyotomi and Fujita with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since the combination of references desires to clean the back side surface and the bevel portion, and Kiyotomi further specifically describes how two nozzles positioned as claimed as discussed above can be used to provide such cleaning by the use of two nozzles to supply removing liquid, and Iwase and Tanaka as discussed above would suggest how the same device/nozzle can also be used for supplying removing and rinse liquid, and Fujita would suggest that when there are two nozzles supplying rinse liquid (one inward and one relatively outward), a single nozzle (such as the inward one) would be expected to provide the desired rinse fluid to the desired areas (as noted above). Kiyotomi further indicates how when cleaning a wafer substrate, nozzles (27, 28) can just be provided to clean/remove material from the back surface and bevel edge, so would suggest no additional nozzles other than the first and second nozzle need to be present to treat the substrate (although Kiyotomi indicates top nozzle 26 can be present, as described in figures 4-7, and 0050-0053, the use of liquid from nozzle 26 is not required, as the liquid from nozzles 27 and 28 goes around the beveled portion to remove portion W0 on the top surface as well), and so for providing the rinse fluid, only a nozzles facing the bottom surface would be needed for the same coverage action, and to use only the first one of these nozzles for providing the rinsing fluid would be suggested as discussed above.
Claim 3: As to the removing liquid being an aqueous solution containing hydrogen peroxide, and ammonia, for example, this would be suggested by Tanaka (note 0068, 0083).
Claim 5: As to discharging inert gas to the front surface side of the substrate during the removing of the first metal layer, the cleaning of the substrate and drying of the substrate, this would be suggested by Tanaka, which indicates that inert gas can be supplied to the front surface of the substrate so that metal removal liquid does not adhere to the substrate, so understood to occur during the removing of the first metal layer, note 0087, 0089, and where furthermore, since the cleaning application of rinse liquid would similarly have liquid applied to the back and peripheral portion, the it would be suggested to provide the inert gas during the cleaning for the same reasons, and also during drying, as until the liquids removed by drying, they could affect the front surface.
Claim 8, as to the removing the part of the first metal layer and the precipitating of the second metal layer being performed in the same processing unit, this would be suggested by Iwashita and Tanaka to the extent claimed, since Iwashita provides the processing in steps in an overall apparatus 10 (processing unit) (note figure 1, 0024-0028), and Tanaka also provides an overall apparatus 100 (processing unit) to contain the processing steps (note figure 1, 0056-0061), suggesting that all processing steps be provided in an overall “processing unit”, which can be considered the “processing unit” under 35 USC 112(f), corresponding to substrate processing apparatus 1 (a processing unit) of figure 1 of applicant, or at least substantially equivalent thereof, where even if an electroless plating unit/subapparatus needed for the second layer application, Iwashita describes such a unit (for the first layer, for example), and notes how copper can be applied, so it would be expected that such an apparatus can be predictably and acceptably used for copper application as desired for the second layer as well.
Claim 9: as to the removing of the at least one part of the first metal layer and the precipitating of the second metal layer being performed in different processing units, this would further be suggested by Iwashita and Tanaka, which indicates that subapparatues/units can be provided in the overall apparatuses (note Iwashita, note figure 1, 0024-0028), and Tanaka, note figure 1, 0056-0061), where Tanaka indicates that there can be a metal application unit (coating unit, note 0063-0066), and also separate metal removal units (note MR) (note 0081-0085), and thus it would be expected that there can be predictably be separate units for coating (for the second metal layer as well) and the metal removal, where these can be considered different “processing units” under 35 USC 112(f) corresponding to removing units and plating units described for the present application or at least substantially equivalent thereof, given the different possible units that can be provided in the references, including plating/deposition units, where even if an electroless plating unit needed for the second layer application, Iwashita describes such a unit (for the first layer, for example), and notes how copper can be applied, so it would be expected that such an apparatus can be predictably and acceptably used for copper application as desired for the second layer as well.
Dubin et al (US 2008/0026555) notes how a copper seed layer functions as a catalyst for further copper electrolytic/electroplate deposition (note 0037).
Double Patenting
The rejection of claims 1 and 7 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,711,363 (hereinafter ‘363) is withdrawn due to the amendment of April 21, 2025 changing the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendment to the claims, with the new reference to Fujita.
It is argued that the cited references do not provide the discharge of the rinse liquid only from the first nozzle as now claimed. However, in the additional reference to Fujita has been cited as to how it would be known to provide rinse liquid from one nozzle or two to cover a rear surface of a substrate, and thus use of only the first nozzle would be predictably acceptable. While applicant’s disclosure indicates use of the first nozzle to rinse the substrate and wash away removing liquid, there is no indication of criticality from the use of only one of the nozzles 41 or 42. Therefore, the rejection above is maintained. If applicant is arguing that there is also no rinsing of the top surface from an additional nozzle (that is no rinsing fluid is discharged from a third, etc. nozzle), as worded in the claims, the “cleaning the substrate” refers to a process for discharging rinse liquid specifically to the rear of the substrate (note claim 1, lines 6-7), and for this cleaning (“in the cleaning of the substrate”) rinse liquid discharge is only from the first nozzle, not the second nozzles, so it is understood that the use of only the first nozzle refers to cleaning treatment to the rear of the substrate and other cleaning treatments to the front surface could be provided. Additionally, when used, Kiyotomi indicates how when cleaning a wafer substrate, nozzles (27, 28) can just be provided to clean/remove material from the back surface and bevel edge, so would indicate no additional nozzles other than the first and second nozzle need to be present to treat the substrate (although Kiyotomi indicates top nozzle 26 can be present, as described in figures 4-7, and 0050-0053, the use of liquid from nozzle 26 is not required, as the liquid from nozzles 27 and 28 goes around the beveled portion to remove portion W0 on the top surface as well), and so for providing the rinse fluid, only a nozzle facing the bottom surface would be needed for the same coverage action.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718