DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 05/13/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 3-30 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 4 are amended.
Claims 10-29 are withdrawn. Claim 30 is new.
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 7, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the first substrate holder is configured to rotate the substrate, the Tsutsumi reference does teach that the first substrate holder is rotating. Examiner recommends adding the limitation of claim 30 to claim 1 to overcome the Tsutsumi reference. However, to advance prosecution, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kubo et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0092504.
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, 4-5, 7-9 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0176002 (henceforth referred to as Tsutsumi) in view of Kubo et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0092504 (henceforth referred to as Kubo) and Shinohara et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0093420 (henceforth referred to as Shinohara).
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) Tsutsumi teaches a system for a surface treatment of a substrate with a liquid, comprising:
- a first substrate holder (FIGS. 4-6 paragraph [0055] transfer arm 260),
- a second substrate holder (FIGS. 4-5 paragraph [0055] spin chuck 220),
- a liquid dispensing unit (paragraph [0060] removing solution supply nozzle 230 or paragraph [0062] rinse nozzle 270),
- a treatment chamber (FIG. 4 paragraph [0053] treatment container 250),
wherein the first substrate holder is configured to hold the substrate (FIG. 6 paragraph [0055] transfer arm 260 supports Wafer W via chuck portions 261),
wherein the first substrate holder is moveable in the treatment chamber and configured to hand the substrate over to the second substrate holder (FIGS. 4-5 paragraph [0055] a transfer arm 260 transfers the wafer W to a spin chuck 220),
wherein the second substrate holder is rotatable and configured to hold the substrate during a rotation of the substrate in and relative to the treatment chamber (FIG. 4 paragraph [0057] spin chuck 220 holds the wafer W and rotates),
wherein the liquid dispensing unit is moveable relative to the second substrate holder and configured to dispense the liquid onto the substrate (FIG. 5 paragraph [0061] supply nozzle 230 moves via moving mechanism 235 along a guide rail 236).
Tsutsumi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a control unit, the first substrate holder is configured to rotate the substrate, wherein the control unit is configured to control a rotational speed of the substrate, a position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or a dispense rate of the liquid.
Kubo teaches a similar system for treatment of a substrate (paragraph [0041] a substrate processing system). Kubo teaches the first substrate holder is configured to rotate the substrate (Figures 18-19 show an upper holder that is spinning. The upper holder can pass the wafer W to a spin chuck 56).
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 the system as taught by Tsutsumi with a first substrate holder that is capable of spinning as taught by Kubo. A spinning holder is one of the various ways that a wafer can be held and transferred to a spin chuck. Additionally, by having the first substrate holder spin the substrate, the rear surface of the substrate can be treated (paragraphs [0078]-[0079]).
Shinohara teaches a similar system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0090] substrate cleaning device). Shinohara teaches a control unit (FIG. 3 paragraph [0118] control device 9), wherein the control unit is configured to control a rotational speed of the substrate (FIG. 3 paragraph [0164] controller 9B controls the suction holding driver to rotate the substrate W), a position of the liquid dispensing unit (FIGS. 1, 3, and 12 paragraph [0122] upper-surface cleaning controller 9G controls the upper-surface cleaning driver 74) and/or a dispense rate of the liquid (paragraph [0122] controller 9G controls the cleaning fluid supplier 75).
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 the system as taught by Tsutsumi with a control unit as taught by Shinohara. It is known in the art to use a control unit to control the functions of a system.
As to claim 4, (Currently Amended) Tsutsumi further teaches the liquid dispensing unit comprises at least one of a first liquid dispensing element arranged adjacent to the first substrate holder (FIG. 4 rinse nozzle 270 and removing solution supply nozzle 230 is arranged above the wafer in a plane adjacent to transfer arm 260), a second liquid dispensing element arranged inside the second substrate holder (paragraph [0102] removing solution supply nozzle 410 and the rinse nozzle 420 are provided inside the spin chuck 400), and a third liquid dispensing element arranged [[at]] adjacent to the second substrate holder (FIG. 20 removing solution supply nozzle 450 and a rinse nozzle 460 are on a plane adjacent to spin chuck 430).
As to claim 5, (Previously presented) Tsutsumi and Shinohara further teach the first substrate holder comprises fingers (Shinohara FIG. 5 lower chucks 11A-B and upper chucks 12A-B have fingers), which are moveable into a closed position to hold the substrate and into an open position to receive or release the substrate (Tsutsumi FIG. 1 paragraph [0055] chuck portions 261 are capable of approaching and separating from each other).
As to claim 7, (Previously presented) Tsutsumi further teaches the second substrate holder is a vacuum holder configured to hold the substrate by means of suction (paragraph [0106] in place of the spin chuck 220, spin chuck 430 is used to vacuum-suck the wafer W).
As to claim 8, (Previously presented) Tsutsumi further teaches the liquid dispensing unit comprises at least a liquid dispensing arm (FIG. 5 paragraph [0063] arm 274 or paragraph [0061] arm 234).
As to claim 9, (Previously presented) Shinohara further teaches a drying unit to dry 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 modify the system as taught by Tsutsumi with a drying unit as taught by Shinohara. It is known in the art to dry a substrate before applying a treatment liquid.
As to claim 30, (New) Kubo further teaches first substrate holder is configured to hand the substrate over to the second substrate holder without flipping the substrate (paragraph [0079] ring member 51 is moved down so that the central portion of the rear surface of the wafer W is held on the spin chuck 56. Figures 18 and 19 show the first substrate holder handing the substrate to the second substrate holder without flipping).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0176002 (henceforth referred to as Tsutsumi), Kubo et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0092504 (henceforth referred to as Kubo) and Shinohara et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0093420 (henceforth referred to as Shinohara) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miyagi et al. U.S. Publication 2015/0264790 (henceforth referred to as Miyagi).
As to claim 3, (Previously presented) Tsutsumi, Kubo, and Shinohara the control of the position of the liquid dispensing unit is a control of an oscillating movement of at least a part of the liquid dispensing unit between at least two position points.
Miyagi teaches a similar system (paragraph [0553] substrate processing apparatus 820). Miyagi teaches the control of the position of the liquid dispensing unit is a control of an oscillating movement of at least a part of the liquid dispensing unit between at least two position points (FIG. 39 paragraph [0555] water arm swinging drive mechanism 822 is controlled so that the water nozzle 821 is moved reciprocally between the position above the rotation center and a position above a peripheral edge portion of the substrate W).
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 the system as taught by Tsutsumi, Kubo, and Shinohara with a liquid dispensing unit that oscillates as taught by Miyagi. It is known in the art to have a liquid dispensing unit that oscillates in movement to ensure that the entire surface of the substrate is treated.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0176002 (henceforth referred to as Tsutsumi), Kubo et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0092504 (henceforth referred to as Kubo) and Shinohara et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0093420 (henceforth referred to as Shinohara) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hayashi et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0240695 (henceforth referred to as Hayashi).
As to claim 6, (Previously presented) Tsutsumi, Kubo, and Shinohara differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the first substrate holder is configured to rotationally center the substrate relative to the second substrate holder.
Hayashi teaches a similar system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0028] a coating and developing apparatus 1 as a substrate processing apparatus). Hayashi teaches the first substrate holder is configured to rotationally center the substrate relative to the second substrate holder (FIG. 2 paragraphs [0043]-[0045] fork 25 deviates so that the transfer of the wafer W is performed in the state that the center point P1 of the wafer W is located on the rotation axis P2 of the spin chuck 41. Paragraph [0031] the two forks 25 is provided on the base 24 and rotates along around a vertical axis).
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 the system as taught by Tsutsumi, Kubo, and Shinohara with a way for the first substrate holder to center the substrate to the second substrate holder. It is known in the art to center a substrate to avoid out-of-balance conditions. Additionally, by having the substrate centered on the spin chuck, the nozzle would be able to evenly spray the substrate.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0176002 (henceforth referred to as Tsutsumi) in view of Shinohara et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0093420 (henceforth referred to as Shinohara).
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) Tsutsumi teaches a system for a surface treatment of a substrate with a liquid, comprising:
- a first substrate holder (FIGS. 4-6 paragraph [0055] transfer arm 260),
- a second substrate holder (FIGS. 4-5 paragraph [0055] spin chuck 220),
- a liquid dispensing unit (paragraph [0060] removing solution supply nozzle 230 or paragraph [0062] rinse nozzle 270),
- a treatment chamber (FIG. 4 paragraph [0053] treatment container 250),
wherein the first substrate holder is configured to hold the substrate (FIG. 6 paragraph [0055] transfer arm 260 supports Wafer W via chuck portions 261),
wherein the first substrate holder is configured to rotate the substrate (FIG. 6 paragraph [0056] the transfer arm 260 has a turning mechanism 263 that turns the substrate around the horizontal axis),
wherein the first substrate holder is moveable in the treatment chamber and configured to hand the substrate over to the second substrate holder (FIGS. 4-5 paragraph [0055] a transfer arm 260 transfers the wafer W to a spin chuck 220),
wherein the second substrate holder is rotatable and configured to hold the substrate during a rotation of the substrate in and relative to the treatment chamber (FIG. 4 paragraph [0057] spin chuck 220 holds the wafer W and rotates),
wherein the liquid dispensing unit is moveable relative to the second substrate holder and configured to dispense the liquid onto the substrate (FIG. 5 paragraph [0061] supply nozzle 230 moves via moving mechanism 235 along a guide rail 236).
Tsutsumi differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control a rotational speed of the substrate, a position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or a dispense rate of the liquid.
Shinohara teaches a similar system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0090] substrate cleaning device). Shinohara teaches a control unit (FIG. 3 paragraph [0118] control device 9), wherein the control unit is configured to control a rotational speed of the substrate (FIG. 3 paragraph [0164] controller 9B controls the suction holding driver to rotate the substrate W), a position of the liquid dispensing unit (FIGS. 1, 3, and 12 paragraph [0122] upper-surface cleaning controller 9G controls the upper-surface cleaning driver 74) and/or a dispense rate of the liquid (paragraph [0122] controller 9G controls the cleaning fluid supplier 75).
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 the system as taught by Tsutsumi with a control unit as taught by Shinohara. It is known in the art to use a control unit to control the functions of a system.
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 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
Prosecution Insights