DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 07/22/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-11, 20 are withdrawn. Claims 12, 14, 17 have been amended. Claim 21 is a new claim. The applicant’s amendment along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2). However, the applicant’s amendment raises new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) as discussed below.
Response to Arguments
3. The applicant’s amendment filed on 07/22/2026 along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous objection.
Regarding to previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0254199 A1), the applicants stated:
“By this response, claim 12 has been amended to describe that, during the processing operation, a distance the nozzle is spaced from the center of the substrate is varied based on an amount of dissolved oxygen in the treatment fluid. Suzuki does not describe that the treatment is moved away from the center of the substrate based on an amount of dissolved oxygen in the treatment fluid. In paragraph [0073] of Suzuki, etching nozzle 411A is described as being moved to a non-supply position, in which treatment fluid is not sprayed onto a center of the substrate, based on a wafer rotation speed etching fluid discharge volume.
In sum, without conceding as to any of the Examiner's assertions that are not specifically addressed herein, Applicant notes that the cited art fails to disclose or suggest "that the nozzle is spaced apart from a center of the substrate, based on an amount of the dissolved oxygen in the treatment liquid," as now recited by claim 12.
For at least the reasons above, there cannot be any anticipation with regard to claim 12. Consequently, there cannot be any anticipation with regard to claims 13-19, at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 12. Accordingly, Applicant requests the Examiner to reconsider and withdraw the above rejection.”
The applicant’s amendment along with the remark were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki. However upon further consideration, new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are set forth as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 12-19, 21 are 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.
In lines 10-12 of claim 12, the applicants recite “and a distance the nozzle is spaced from the center of the substrate is varied based on an amount of dissolved oxygen in the treatment fluid.” (emphasis added). It is noted that the applicants fail to explicitly disclose that the initial treatment liquid (i.e. fresh treatment liquid before applied to the substrate) comprises dissolved oxygen. It is unclear whether the initial treatment liquid comprises dissolved oxygen or not.
Further, it is known in the arts that an amount of dissolved oxygen in the treatment liquid varies during the entire process (See evidence reference Higashi et al. (US 2019/0006206 A1, paragraph 0065-0078, Fig 5, fig 6-7). Further, it is known in the art the amount oxygen varies according to the location of the wafer when measured. For example, the concentration of dissolve oxygen in the center portion may be higher than the concentration of dissolve oxygen in the peripheral portion of the wafer (See Fig 6-7 of evidence reference Higashi et al. (US 2019/0006206 A1). The step of measuring the amount/concentration of dissolved oxygen at specific time and/or at the specific location is required since the amount/concentration of dissolved oxygen is varied during the entire process based on location and time. Specifically, does the amount of dissolved oxygen is measured in an initial treatment liquid (i.e. measure the amount of dissolved oxygen in fresh treatment liquid)? Or does the amount of dissolved oxygen is measured at the end of the treatment process (i.e. measure the amount of dissolved oxygen in used treatment liquid) ? Does the amount of oxygen is measured at the specific location on the wafer (center vs. peripheral) during the processing operation of the treatment liquid? Further it is unclear how the amount of dissolved oxygen is measured (e.g. a specific tool/apparatus is required or not). It is unclear from the claim when, where and how an amount of dissolved oxygen is measured. It is not possible to determine the distance of the nozzle from the center without the step of measuring an amount of dissolved oxygen at a specific time and at a specific location.
Claims 13-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they directly or indirectly depends on indefinite claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
7. Claims 13-19, 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights