DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 03/19/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending. Claims 25-26 are withdrawn.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 1-24 in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cleaning means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 4, 7-20 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.
Claim 4 states that “[the contact cleaning members] are coaxially placed and supported on an identical swing arm in a plan view.” It is unclear whether the contact cleaning members are placed on separate but identical swing arms or the same swing arm. Also, it is unclear how the contact cleaning member are coaxially placed. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the statement to mean that there are separate swing arms that are identical, and that to be coaxially placed is to have a parallel axis to each other.
Claim 7 states “the non-contact cleaning nozzle sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section.” It is unclear if the fluid is different than a chemical liquid. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the fluid is the same as the chemical liquid.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 112(b) due to dependency on claim 7.
Claim 10 refers to “a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section.” It is unclear if the fluid being sprayed is the same as the organic solvent. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the fluid being sprayed is the organic solvent.
Claims 11, 14-17 are rejected under 112(b) due to dependency on claim 10.
Claim 11 states “the non- contact cleaning nozzle sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface also when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section.” It is unclear if the fluid is different than a chemical liquid. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the fluid is the same as the chemical liquid.
Claim 12 states “a non-contact cleaning nozzle sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface also when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section.” It is unclear if the fluid is different than a chemical liquid. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the fluid is the same as the chemical liquid.
Claim 13 is rejected under 112(b) due to dependency on claim 12.
Claim 18 refers to “a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate supported by the rotation support section to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section.” It is unclear whether or not the fluid being sprayed is the same as the organic solvent. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the fluid being sprayed is the organic solvent.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 112(b) due to dependency on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee).
As to claim 1, (Original) Lee teaches a cleaning apparatus comprising:
a rotation support section that supports and rotates a substrate (FIG. 4 paragraph [0059] spin head 340 supports and rotates the substrate W);
a chemical liquid supply section that supplies a chemical liquid other than an organic solvent to a surface of the substrate (paragraph [0068] at step S110, a pre-wet liquid is supplied onto the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340. The pre-wet liquid may be pure water (DIW), which reads on the chemical liquid other than an organic solvent);
an organic solvent supply section that supplies an organic solvent to a surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0071] and [0064] at step S120, the treatment liquid is supplied to the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340. The treatment liquid may be an organic solvent such as isopropyl alcohol (IPA)); and
cleaning means that cleans a surface of the substrate supported by the rotation support section using a chemical liquid from the chemical liquid supply section (paragraph [0068] since a pre-wet liquid is supplied on the substrate W as it is supported by the spin head 340, the substrate would be cleaned), and then cleans a surface of the substrate using an organic solvent from the organic solvent supply section with the substrate being kept supported by the rotation support section (paragraph [0071] since an organic solvent is supplied on the substrate W as it is supported by the spin head 340, the substrate would be cleaned).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Miyahara U.S. Publication 2019/0084117 (henceforth referred to as Miyahara).
As to claim 2, (Original) Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach wherein the cleaning means includes:
a first contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section; and
a second contact cleaning member different from the first contact cleaning member, the second contact cleaning member coming into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section.
Miyahara teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 9 paragraph [0015] substrate processing unit). Miyahara teaches
a first contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface (FIGS. 12A-12B paragraph [0112] polishing brush 29-1, which moves independently of brush 29-2); and
a second contact cleaning member different from the first contact cleaning member, the second contact cleaning member coming into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface (FIGS. 12A-12B paragraph [0112] polishing brush 29-2, which moves independently of brush 29-1).
Examiner regards the operation of the claimed cleaning apparatus as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The brushes 29-1 and 29-2 would be capable of scrubbing when a chemical liquid or an organic solvent is supplied. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with contact cleaning members as taught by Miyahara. It would have been obvious to have two cleaning members in order to prevent contamination of the brushes.
As to claim 3, (Original) Miyahara further teaches each of the first contact cleaning member and the second contact cleaning member is a pen cleaning member or a buff cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate (Figures 12A-12B show that the brushes 29-1 and 29-2 are buff cleaning members that come into contact with a surface of the substrate) while rotating around a central axis perpendicular to the surface of the substrate to clean the surface (paragraph [0092] the polishing brush 29 may be rotated. It would have been obvious that brushes 29-1 and 29-2 would rotate in the same manner as polishing brush 29. The axis of rotation is perpendicular to the surface of the substrate).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Miyahara U.S. Publication 2019/0084117 (henceforth referred to as Miyahara) as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Kago et al. U.S. Publication 2005/0183754 (henceforth referred to as Kago).
As to claim 4, (Original) Lee and Miyahara differ from the first contact cleaning member and the second contact cleaning member are coaxially placed and supported on an identical swing arm in a plan view.
Kago teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (paragraph [0023] substrate processing apparatus 1). Kago teaches the first contact cleaning member and the second contact cleaning member are coaxially placed and supported on an identical swing arm in a plan view (FIGS. 2-3 paragraph [0032] the cleaning brushes 20 and 40 are on the distal ends of brush arms 21 and 41, respectively. The axis of the brushes are parallel to each other and the swing arms are identical).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee and Miyahara with an identical swing arm as taught by Kago. It is known in the art to have separate swing arms with individual brushes as it can provide more uniform treatment.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Hillman U.S. Patent 6,059,888 (henceforth referred to as Hillman).
As to claim 2, (Original) Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the cleaning means includes:
a first contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section; and
a second contact cleaning member different from the first contact cleaning member, the second contact cleaning member coming into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section.
Hillman teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 3 column 3 line 39-40 wafer cleaning system). Hillman teaches
a first contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface (FIG. 3 column 6 line 29 scrubber 22a); and
a second contact cleaning member different from the first contact cleaning member, the second contact cleaning member coming into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface (FIG. 3 column 6 line 38 scrubber 24a. Examiner regards the operation of the claimed cleaning apparatus as intended use of the apparatus’ structure. The scrubber 22a and 24a would be capable of scrubbing when a chemical liquid or an organic solvent is supplied).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with contact cleaning members as taught by Hillman. It would have been obvious to have two cleaning members in order to prevent contamination of the brushes.
As to claim 5, (Original) Hillman further teaches each of the first contact cleaning member and the second contact cleaning member is a roll cleaning member (Figure 4 shows that the scrubbers are a roll cleaning member) that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface (column 7 lines 29-37 and 40-41 scrubbers 22 and 24 scrub the surfaces of the wafer) while rotating around a central axis parallel to the surface of the substrate (FIG. 3 column 5 lines 56-57 and 63-64 scrubber axis 54a and 55a are parallel to scrubber carrier axis 17).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Hillman U.S. Patent 6,059,888 (henceforth referred to as Hillman) as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Nakahara JP2011127188 (henceforth referred to as Nakahara).
As to claim 6, (Original) Lee and Hillman differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a material of the second contact cleaning member is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Nakahara teaches a cleaning apparatus (paragraph [0028] Figure 3 is a detailed view of the cleaning chamber). Nakahara teaches a material of the second contact cleaning member is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (FIGS. 3 and 5 paragraph [0036] cleaning roll 20 is wrapped with a brush material made of polytetrafluoroethylene).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee and Hillman with a contact cleaning member made of PTFE as taught by Nakahara. It would have been obvious to use PTFE as it has vacuum resistance, heat resistance, and dust resistance (paragraph [0036]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Kobayashi U.S. Publication 2015/0200087 (henceforth referred to as Kobayashi).
As to claim 7, (Original) Lee further teaches the cleaning means includes a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section (paragraphs [0061] and [0064] the first supply unit 380 has a first nozzle 384 that supplies a treatment liquid and the second supply unit 390 has a second nozzle 394 that supplies a treatment liquid onto the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340. As shown in Figure 4, the nozzles 384 and 394 are separated from the substrate surface).
Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach that a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section.
Kobayashi teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (paragraph [0030] substrate processing apparatus 100). Kobayashi teaches a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section (FIG. 1 paragraph [0078] the nozzle 31 is moved toward the top surface of the substrate 9 on the spin base 11 in the non-contact state).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays a chemical liquid as taught by Kobayashi. It would have been obvious to have a non-contact nozzle to minimize the risk of damage and/or contamination on the substrate.
As to claim 8, (Original) Kobayashi further teaches the non-contact cleaning nozzle is a two-fluid jet nozzle that sprays a jet stream containing a mixture of liquid and carrier gas (paragraph [0064] nitrogen gas and DI water can be supplied to the two fluid nozzle 31. Paragraph [0065] nitrogen gas and IPA (in the liquid phase) can be supplied to the two fluid nozzle 31), or a megasonic nozzle that sprays a liquid excited by an ultrasonic vibrator.
As to claim 9, (Original) Lee and Kobayashi further teach the chemical liquid supply section and/or the organic solvent supply section are provided in the non-contact cleaning nozzle (Lee paragraphs [0061] and [0064] a first nozzle 384 and a second nozzle 394 supplies a treatment liquid onto the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340 or Kobayashi FIG. 1 paragraphs [0064] and [0065] either DI water or IPA can be supplied to the nozzle 31).
Claims 10-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Miyazaki et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0401997 (henceforth referred to as Miyazaki).
As to claim 10, (Original) Lee further teaches the cleaning means includes a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section (paragraphs [0061] and [0064] the first supply unit 380 has a first nozzle 384 that supplies a treatment liquid and the second supply unit 390 has a second nozzle 394 that supplies a treatment liquid onto the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340.)
Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section.
Miyazaki teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 2 paragraph [0052] substrate cleaning device). Miyazaki teaches a contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section (paragraph [0079] While a liquid (such as pure water) is supplied to the substrate W, the substrate W is physically cleaned by a cleaning member 11).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a contact cleaning member as taught by Miyazaki. It would have been obvious to use a contact cleaning member to aid in the cleaning of the surface of the wafer.
As to claim 11, (Original) Miyazaki further teaches the non- contact cleaning nozzle sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface also when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section (paragraph [0079] the rinse liquid supply nozzle 93 supplies pure water, which reads on the claimed chemical liquid. Figure 2 shows that the nozzle 93 is not contacting the surface 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 modify the cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays a chemical liquid as taught by Miyazaki. It would have been obvious to have a non-contact nozzle to minimize the risk of damage and/or contamination on the substrate.
As to claim 12, (Original) Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the cleaning means includes:
a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section; and
a contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section.
Miyazaki teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 2 paragraph [0052] substrate cleaning device). Miyazaki teaches
a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when a chemical liquid is supplied from the chemical liquid supply section (paragraph [0079] the rinse liquid supply nozzle 93 supplies pure water, which reads on the claimed chemical liquid. Figure 2 shows that the nozzle 93 is not contacting the surface of the substrate.); and
a contact cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section (paragraphs [0051] and [0079] While a chemical liquid is supplied to the substrate W, the substrate W is physically cleaned by a cleaning member 11).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a non-contact cleaning nozzle and a contact cleaning member as taught by Miyazaki. It would have been obvious to have a non-contact nozzle to minimize the risk of damage and/or contamination on the substrate. Additionally, it would have been obvious to use a contact cleaning member to aid in the cleaning of the surface of the wafer.
As to claim 13, (Original) Lee further teaches the non- contact cleaning nozzle sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate to clean the surface also when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section (paragraphs [0061] and [0064] the first supply unit 380 has a first nozzle 384 that supplies a treatment liquid and the second supply unit 390 has a second nozzle 394 that supplies a treatment liquid onto the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340).
As to claim 15, (Original) Miyazaki further teaches the contact cleaning member is a pen cleaning member or a buff cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface while rotating around a central axis perpendicular to the surface of the substrate (FIGS. 4 and 13 paragraph [0049] cleaning member 11 can be a pencil cleaning member 11a that scrubs the surface of the substrate W as it rotates. The axis of the pencil cleaning member 11a is perpendicular to the surface of the substrate).
As to claim 16, (Original) Miyazaki further teaches the contact cleaning member is a roll cleaning member that comes into contact with a surface of the substrate to clean the surface while rotating around a central axis parallel to the surface of the substrate (FIG. 13 paragraph [0049] roll cleaning member 11b scrubs and cleans the surface of the substrate W while rotating the roll cleaning member 11b around a central axis parallel to the substrate W).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Miyazaki et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0401997 (henceforth referred to as Miyazaki) as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Hamada et al. CN112582298 (henceforth referred to as Hamada).
As to claim 14, (Original) Lee and Miyazaki differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a material of the contact cleaning member is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Hamada teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0032] substrate processing apparatus). Hamada teaches a material of the contact cleaning member is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (paragraph [n0032] the brush 31 can be formed from a sponge containing resin, the resin being polytetrafluoroethylene).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee and Miyazaki with a material of the contact cleaning member being PTFE. It is known in the art to use PTFE as a scrubbing material as PTFE has a relatively high resistance to chemicals, which allows for the brush to be used while treatment liquid is simultaneously supplied to the surface of the substrate (paragraph [n0033]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Miyazaki et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0401997 (henceforth referred to as Miyazaki) as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Kobayashi U.S. Publication 2015/0200087 (henceforth referred to as Kobayashi).
As to claim 17, (Original) Lee and Miyazaki differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the non- contact cleaning nozzle is a two-fluid jet nozzle that sprays a jet stream containing a mixture of liquid and carrier gas, or a megasonic nozzle that sprays a liquid excited by an ultrasonic vibrator.
Kobayashi teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (paragraph [0030] substrate processing apparatus 100). Kobayashi teaches the non- contact cleaning nozzle is a two-fluid jet nozzle that sprays a jet stream containing a mixture of liquid and carrier gas (paragraph [0064] nitrogen gas and DI water can be supplied to the two fluid nozzle 31. Paragraph [0065] nitrogen gas and IPA (in the liquid phase) can be supplied to the two fluid nozzle 31).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee and Miyazaki with a two-fluid jet nozzle as taught by Kobayashi. It would have been obvious to use a two-fluid jet nozzle as taught by Kobayashi in order to form fine droplets (paragraph [0065]) to effectively clean the porous surface of the substrate while damages are prevented (paragraph [0018]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Nakano U.S. Publication 2013/0167947 (henceforth referred to as Nakano).
As to claim 18, (Original) Lee teaches a cleaning apparatus comprising:
a rotation support section that supports and rotates a substrate (FIG. 4 paragraph [0059] spin head 340 supports and rotates the substrate W);
an organic solvent supply section that supplies an organic solvent to a surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0071] and [0064] at step S120, the treatment liquid is supplied to the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340. The treatment liquid may be an organic solvent such as isopropyl alcohol (IPA));
a non-contact cleaning nozzle that sprays fluid onto a surface of the substrate supported by the rotation support section to clean the surface when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section (paragraphs [0061] and [0064] the first supply unit 380 has a first nozzle 384 that supplies a treatment liquid and the second supply unit 390 has a second nozzle 394 that supplies a treatment liquid onto the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340. As shown in Figure 4, the nozzles 384 and 394 are separated from the substrate surface).
Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a drying nozzle that sprays organic solvent vapor onto a surface of the substrate to dry the surface with the substrate being kept supported by the rotation support section.
Nakano teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (paragraph [0032] substrate processing apparatus (substrate cleaning apparatus)). Nakano teaches a drying nozzle that sprays organic solvent vapor onto a surface of the substrate to dry the surface with the substrate being kept supported by the rotation support section (paragraph [0046] nozzle 20 is to supply an IPA vapor).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a drying nozzle as taught by Nakano. It is known in the art to use a drying nozzle that sprays IPA in order to reduce the formation of watermarks on a surface.
As to claim 20, (Original) Lee further teaches wherein the organic solvent supply section is provided in the non-contact cleaning nozzle (Lee paragraphs [0061] and [0064] a first nozzle 384 and a second nozzle 394 supplies a treatment liquid onto the substrate W positioned on the spin head 340).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Nakano U.S. Publication 2013/0167947 (henceforth referred to as Nakano) as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Kobayashi U.S. Publication 2015/0200087 (henceforth referred to as Kobayashi).
As to claim 19, (Original) Lee and Nakano differs from the instant claim from failing to teach the non- contact cleaning nozzle is a two-fluid jet nozzle that sprays a jet stream containing a mixture of liquid and carrier gas, or a megasonic nozzle that sprays a liquid excited by an ultrasonic vibrator.
Kobayashi teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (paragraph [0030] substrate processing apparatus 100). Kobayashi teaches the non- contact cleaning nozzle is a two-fluid jet nozzle that sprays a jet stream containing a mixture of liquid and carrier gas (paragraph [0065] nitrogen gas and IPA (in the liquid phase) can be supplied to the two fluid nozzle 31).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee and Nakano with a two-fluid jet nozzle as taught by Kobayashi. It would have been obvious to use a two-fluid jet nozzle as taught by Kobayashi in order to form fine droplets (paragraph [0065]) and the droplets of the IPA solution volatizes immediately, so that the IPA cannot cause damage to the substrate (paragraph [0010] and [0012]).
Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Nakai et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0027383 (henceforth referred to as Nakai).
As to claim 21, (Original) Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach an organic solvent heating section that is disposed on an upstream side of the organic solvent supply section, and dilutes and heats, with warm water, an organic solvent to be supplied to the organic solvent supply section.
Nakai teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0019] substrate processing apparatus 1). Nakai teaches an organic solvent heating section that is disposed on an upstream side of the organic solvent supply section, and dilutes and heats, with warm water, an organic solvent to be supplied to the organic solvent supply section (paragraph [0030] pure water, which is heated by the heater 44, and an organic solvent are supplied to the connecting part 45 to obtain a dilute organic solvent).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a diluted, heated organic solvent as taught by Nakai. Using a mixed solution on the wafer reduces the likelihood of local drying on the upper surface, which subsequently suppresses the collapse of the pattern elements while omitting the process of forming the liquid film of the pure water (paragraph [0037]). Additionally, using a heated mixed solution would raise the temperature of the substrate, which reduces the time required for the process related to drying (paragraph [0037]). Also, by using heated water to raise the temperature of the organic solvent, it is thereby possible to easily prepare the mixed solution of high temperature while avoiding heating of the organic solvent accompanied with an increase in the cost in preparing the mixed solution (paragraph [0039]).
Claim 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Sekiguchi et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0260949 (henceforth referred to as Sekiguchi).
As to claim 22, (Original) Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a first warm water supply nozzle that supplies warm water to a surface of the substrate to dilute and heat an organic solvent from the organic solvent supply section on the surface of the substrate when the organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section.
Sekiguchi teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0008] cleaning apparatus). Sekiguchi teaches a first warm water supply nozzle that supplies warm water to a surface of the substrate to dilute and heat an organic solvent from the organic solvent supply section on the surface of the substrate when the organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section (paragraphs [0065]-[0067] and [0076] the chemical liquid at room temperature is supplied with a heated liquid such as DIW.).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a warm water supply nozzle as taught by Sekiguchi. By using a warm liquid, the substitution of the chemical liquid is easily progressed by heat convection (paragraph [0076]).
Claim 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Otsuji et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0076018 (henceforth referred to as Otsuji).
As to claim 23, (Original) Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a second warm water supply nozzle that supplies warm water to a back surface of the substrate to heat the substrate when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section, and thereby heats the organic solvent from the organic solvent supply section on a front surface of the substrate with heat of the substrate.
Otsuji teaches a similar cleaning apparatus (FIG. 1 paragraph [0102] substrate processing apparatus 1). Otsuji teaches a second warm water supply nozzle that supplies warm water to a back surface of the substrate to heat the substrate (paragraphs [0170]-[0171] a discharge port 211a faces the lower surface (rear surface) of the substrate and discharges a heating fluid, such as purified water, toward the substrate) when an organic solvent is supplied from the organic solvent supply section, and thereby heats the organic solvent from the organic solvent supply section on a front surface of the substrate with heat of the substrate (FIG. 10 paragraph [0182] heating fluid is discharged from the discharge port 211a to the lower surface (rear surface) of the substrate. This will subsequently heat the substrate and the liquid film 251 of the organic solvent liquid).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Lee with a warm water supply nozzle as taught by Otsuji. By using warm water to heat the substrate (and the organic solvent), the replacement performance of the organic solvent can be increased (paragraph [0182]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0401997 (henceforth referred to as Miyazaki) in view of Lee et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0345641 (henceforth referred to as Lee).
As to claim 24, (Original) Miyazaki teaches a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a polishing section that polishes a substrate (paragraph [0046] polishing unit 314a to 314d); and
a cleaning section that cleans a polished substrate (paragraph [0046] cleaning units 316 and 318).
Miyazaki differs from the instant claim in failing to teach that the cleaning section includes a cleaning apparatus according to claim 1.
Lee teaches a cleaning section (FIG. 4 paragraph [0056] substrate treating apparatuses 300 that perform cleaning processes on the substrates W). Lee teaches the cleaning section includes a cleaning apparatus according to claim 1 (see previous rejections).
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 cleaning apparatus as taught by Miyazaki with a cleaning section as taught by Lee. The cleaning section as taught by Lee is one of the ways in which the cleaner can be configured.
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
Prosecution Insights