DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 01/23/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-29 are pending. Claims 10-29 are withdrawn.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification indicates “Lamella oscillations may be used and/or tuned to achieve high process flexibility to tune the edge exclusion zone through process parameter control only” (page 5 lines 10-12). However, the specification does not provide guidance on what process parameters need to be met in order to produce lamella oscillation. At most, the specification describes techniques at a high level of generalization at page 8 (see excerpt provided below).
“In an embodiment, the rotational speed of the substrate, the position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or the dispense rate of the liquid may be controlled to provide lamella oscillations of the liquid dispensed onto the rotating substrate” (page 8 lines 7-9).
This description of process parameters that may be controlled to produce the control/tune the lamella oscillations is “non-limiting” as to the particular process parameters that need to be met. A person of ordinary skill in the art would require undue experimentation to make and use the invention as claimed, for the reasons described below.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 covers the rotational speed of the substrate, the position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or the dispense rate of the liquid that. The specification does not provide direction what process parameters need to be met in order to achieve the cited lamella oscillations. At the time of filing, the following determinations are made with respect to the Wands factors.
(A) The breadth of the claims
The claims are broad as to the process parameters being met regarding the rotational speed of the substrate, the position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or the dispense rate of the liquid.
(B) The nature of the invention
The nature of the invention is described in the brief “Summary disclosure.” 37 CFR 1.73, MPEP 608.01(d). The instant specification describes the Summary disclosure beginning at page 2 and essentially mirrors the claim language of the independent claims. Accordingly, the nature of the invention is to produce the edge exclusion zone by using/tuning lamella oscillations.
(C) The state of the prior art
A search of the prior art reveals that there is no prior art regarding lamella oscillations. However, Tsutsumi et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0176002 and Shinohara et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0093420 control the process parameters of the rotational speed of the substrate, the position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or the dispense rate of the liquid, which are parameters that provide lamella oscillations.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
The level of one of ordinary skill in the art is a person having training and/or experience in surface treatment of a substrate. Such a person would be familiar with the process parameters discussed in the specification such as the rotational speed of the substrate, the position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or the dispense rate of the liquid.
(E) The level of predictability in the art
The control of the rotational speed of the substrate, the position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or the dispense rate of the liquid are known and therefore to some degree predictable in what they achieve. However, the process parameters to be met in order to produce lamella oscillations by changing these process parameters is unpredictable as to the lamella oscillations needing to be produced, and experimentation is required to determine a combination of process parameters to achieve lamella oscillations.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor
The inventor states that the process parameters that can be controlled are the rotational speed of the substrate, the position of the liquid dispensing unit and/or the dispense rate of the liquid. However, the list is non-limiting and no explanation is provided about the acceptable ranges of the process parameters in order to produce lamella oscillations.
(G) The existence of working examples
The specification has no working examples.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
While prior art Tsutsumi and Shinohara show control over the process parameters, several experiments would have to be conducted to obtain the ideal process parameters for each rotational speed, the position of the liquid dispensing unit, and/or the dispense rate of the liquid to obtain the desired product.
Based on a consideration of all of the above Wands factors, while lamella oscillation is known and the level of skill is high, producing an edge exclusion zone via lamella oscillations in the final product in an unpredictable field without any direction by the specification and only a recitation of process parameters that can be controlled at a high level of generalization favors that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to conduct undue experimentation to make and use the invention as recited in claim 2.
For the reasons described above, claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 4 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 4 states a first liquid dispensing element “arranged at” the first substrate holder and a third liquid dispensing element “arranged at” the third substrate holder. It is unclear if “arranged at” means that the dispensing elements need to face toward their respective substrate holder or if the dispensing elements need to be on a plane adjacent to the substrate holders (i.e. the first substrate holder needs to be on a plane above the wafer and the third substrate holder needs to be on a plane below the wafer). For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting that the dispensing elements are on a plane that is adjacent to their respective substrate holders.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-9 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 Shinohara et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0093420 (henceforth referred to as Shinohara).
As to claim 1, (Previously presented) 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), and
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), and
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.
As to claim 2, (Previously presented) Shinohara further teaches the control unit is configured to control the rotational speed of the substrate (FIG. 3 paragraph [0164] controller 9B controls the suction holding driver to rotate the substrate W), the 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 the dispense rate of the liquid (paragraph [0122] controller 9G controls the cleaning fluid supplier 75) to provide lamella oscillations (if at least one of the parameters are controlled, one would have reasonable expectations that lamella oscillations would be provided) of the liquid dispensed onto the rotating substrate.
As to claim 4, (Previously presented) Tsutsumi further teaches the liquid dispensing unit comprises at least one of a first liquid dispensing element arranged at 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 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 wherein 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 (paragraph [0161] controller 9E controls the injection gas supplier 57 to dry the substrate W).
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.
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) 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 and Shinohara differ from the instant claim in failing to teach 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 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) 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 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 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.
Conclusion
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