DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 4 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 recites “the drying processing target is a wafer storage container including a front opening unified pod (FOUP) and a front opening shipping box (FOSB).” The specification as submitted states “The wafer storage container 20 is, for example, a front opening unified pod (FOUP) or front opening shipping box (FOSB) and includes a container body 20a and a door 20b.” in ¶ 18. All other mentions of the structure of claim 4 utilize the “or” operator and not the claimed “and” operator. Therefore, claim 4 does not have proper written support in the specification for both a FOUP and FOSB to be used at the same time. For examination purposes, claim 4 will be treated as “the drying processing target is a wafer storage container including a front opening unified pod (FOUP) [[and]] or a front opening shipping box (FOSB).”
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.
Claim 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 recites “the drying processing target is a wafer storage container including a front opening unified pod (FOUP) and a front opening shipping box (FOSB).” The Examiner is unclear how both an FOUP and an FOSB can be concurrently used. The specification as submitted discloses the use of either of these options and not both in ¶ 18. Therefore, claim 4 does not have proper written support in the specification for both a FOUP and FOSB to be used at the same time. For examination purposes, claim 4 will be treated as “the drying processing target is a wafer storage container including a front opening unified pod (FOUP) [[and]] or a front opening shipping box (FOSB).”
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0257399 (Okada hereinafter) in view of JP 2006-194577 (Goto hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches a drying apparatus (Figure 2) that discloses a drying chamber configured to hold a drying processing target in an inside thereof (Figure 2 drying chamber 2 per ¶ 62); a decompressor configured to decompress the inside of the drying chamber (Decompressor 8 per ¶ 65); and a controller configured to control the decompressor to decompress the inside of the drying chamber (¶ 70), thereby executing a drying processing of evaporating and removing moisture from the drying processing target (¶ 70).
Okada is silent with respect that the controller executes, after the drying processing, an additional decompression processing of lowering a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber below a pressure at a time of the drying processing, for a predetermined time, and determines a dry condition of the drying processing target based on a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber that has been reached after the additional decompression processing.
However, Goto teaches a substrate treating and drying device that discloses that the controller executes, after the drying processing (“When a certain time t1 elapses after the start of processing, the pressure in the accommodation space 23 hardly decreases and becomes constant (process II). This is because, as a result of the pressure reduction, the pressure in the accommodation space 23 reaches the saturated vapor pressure PV of the solvent constituting the liquid film, and the volatilization of the solvent continuously occurs from within the liquid film. Saturated vapor pressure PV is maintained regardless of the exhaust operation until time t2 when almost all of the solvent volatilizes.” With Figure 7), an additional decompression processing of lowering a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber below a pressure at a time of the drying processing (Additional drying procedure per “When almost all the solvent is volatilized, the pressure is reduced again to the set pressure PS (process III). Then, when the pressure reaches substantially the set pressure PS as after the time t3 has passed, the decrease in pressure slows down and converges to a substantially constant value (process IV). When this point is reached, an almost completely solidified coating is obtained.” With Figure 7), for a predetermined time, and determines a dry condition of the drying processing target based on a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber that has been reached after the additional decompression processing (“In the present embodiment, based on such a pressure change in the accommodation space 23, it is determined whether or not the drying of the liquid film has been completed, that is, whether or not the evaporation of all the solvents has been completed ( Step S4). Specifically, after the start of the drying process, the pressure change in the accommodation space 23 is continuously measured by the pressure gauge 54 to obtain a pressure behavior like an actual pressure curve 62. Then, when the determination unit 46 determines that the measured pressure has reached the set pressure PS, the drying process may be terminated. In FIG. 7, it means that the time t4 has elapsed and this state has been reached.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying procedure of Okada with the additional drying of Goto to ensure that the substrate is dried to a required amount.
Regarding claim 2, Okada’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Okada and Goto would further disclose that when the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber that has been reached after the additional decompression processing does not reach a predetermined threshold value, the controller determines that the dry condition of the drying processing target is insufficient, and executes an additional drying processing on the drying processing target (Goto Figure 6 with “ In the present embodiment, based on such a pressure change in the accommodation space 23, it is determined whether or not the drying of the liquid film has been completed, that is, whether or not the evaporation of all the solvents has been completed ( Step S4). Specifically, after the start of the drying process, the pressure change in the accommodation space 23 is continuously measured by the pressure gauge 54 to obtain a pressure behavior like an actual pressure curve 62. Then, when the determination unit 46 determines that the measured pressure has reached the set pressure PS, the drying process may be terminated. In FIG. 7, it means that the time t4 has elapsed and this state has been reached” where the threshold value is the pressure).
Regarding claim 3, Okada’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Okada and Goto would further disclose that a plurality of threshold values is set for the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber, so that a plurality of different pressure ranges is set, and wherein the controller changes a processing after the additional decompression processing according to a pressure range that has been reached by the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber after the additional decompression processing (¶ 71 of Okada).
Regarding claim 5, Okada’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Okada and Goto would further disclose that when the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber that has been reached after the additional decompression processing reaches a predetermined threshold value, the controller determines that the drying condition of the drying processing target is sufficient (Goto “In the present embodiment, based on such a pressure change in the accommodation space 23, it is determined whether or not the drying of the liquid film has been completed, that is, whether or not the evaporation of all the solvents has been completed ( Step S4). Specifically, after the start of the drying process, the pressure change in the accommodation space 23 is continuously measured by the pressure gauge 54 to obtain a pressure behavior like an actual pressure curve 62. Then, when the determination unit 46 determines that the measured pressure has reached the set pressure PS, the drying process may be terminated. In FIG. 7, it means that the time t4 has elapsed and this state has been reached.” Where in instances the drying is sufficient).
Regarding claim 6, Okada’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Okada and Goto would further disclose that the controller determines a type of the drying processing target and determines the dry condition of the drying processing target using the predetermined threshold value that has been set according to the type of the drying processing target (Goto “The process up to step S3 corresponds to the process I in FIG. That is, when the set pressure PS is given as shown in the set pressure curve 61 and the decompression process is started, as shown in the actual pressure curve 62, the pressure in the accommodation space 23 rapidly decreases toward the set pressure PS. It is a process of doing. The set pressure PS needs to be sufficiently smaller than the saturated vapor pressure of the solvent of the resist solution. Further, in this process, the volatilization of the solvent from the liquid film of the resist solution occurs mainly from the surface of the liquid film.”).
Regarding claim 7, Okada teaches a drying apparatus (Figure 2) and method of operation that discloses decompressing an inside of a drying chamber that holds a drying processing target in the inside thereof (¶ 65 and 70), thereby executing a drying processing of evaporating and removing moisture from the drying processing target (¶ 70).
Okada is silent with respect to after the drying processing, executing, for a predetermined time, an additional decompression processing of lowering a pressure of an inside of the drying chamber below a pressure at a time of the drying processing, and determining a dry condition of the drying processing target based on a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber that has been reached after the additional decompression processing.
However, Goto teaches a substrate treating and drying device that discloses after the drying processing, executing, for a predetermined time (“When a certain time t1 elapses after the start of processing, the pressure in the accommodation space 23 hardly decreases and becomes constant (process II). This is because, as a result of the pressure reduction, the pressure in the accommodation space 23 reaches the saturated vapor pressure PV of the solvent constituting the liquid film, and the volatilization of the solvent continuously occurs from within the liquid film. Saturated vapor pressure PV is maintained regardless of the exhaust operation until time t2 when almost all of the solvent volatilizes.” With Figure 7), an additional decompression processing of lowering a pressure of an inside of the drying chamber below a pressure at a time of the drying processing (Additional drying procedure per “When almost all the solvent is volatilized, the pressure is reduced again to the set pressure PS (process III). Then, when the pressure reaches substantially the set pressure PS as after the time t3 has passed, the decrease in pressure slows down and converges to a substantially constant value (process IV). When this point is reached, an almost completely solidified coating is obtained.” With Figure 7), and determining a dry condition of the drying processing target based on a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber that has been reached after the additional decompression processing (“In the present embodiment, based on such a pressure change in the accommodation space 23, it is determined whether or not the drying of the liquid film has been completed, that is, whether or not the evaporation of all the solvents has been completed ( Step S4). Specifically, after the start of the drying process, the pressure change in the accommodation space 23 is continuously measured by the pressure gauge 54 to obtain a pressure behavior like an actual pressure curve 62. Then, when the determination unit 46 determines that the measured pressure has reached the set pressure PS, the drying process may be terminated. In FIG. 7, it means that the time t4 has elapsed and this state has been reached.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying procedure of Okada with the additional drying of Goto to ensure that the substrate is dried to a required amount.
Regarding claim 8, Okada teaches a drying apparatus (Figure 2) that discloses a drying chamber configured to hold a drying processing target in an inside thereof (Drying chamber 2 in Figure 2 per ¶ 62); a decompressor configured to decompress the inside of the drying chamber (Decompressor 8 per ¶ 65); and a controller configured to control the decompressor to decompress the inside of the drying chamber, thereby executing a drying processing of evaporating and removing moisture from the drying processing target (¶ 70 with controller 20).
Okada is silent with respect that after the drying processing, the controller reduces a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber to a predetermined pressure lower than a pressure at a time of the drying processing, and determines a dry condition of the drying processing target based on whether the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber after lapse of a predetermined time in a state where the decompressing of the inside of the drying chamber is stopped, rises from the predetermined pressure.
However, Goto teaches a substrate treating and drying device that discloses after the drying processing, the controller reduces a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber to a predetermined pressure lower than a pressure at a time of the drying processing (Additional drying procedure per “When almost all the solvent is volatilized, the pressure is reduced again to the set pressure PS (process III). Then, when the pressure reaches substantially the set pressure PS as after the time t3 has passed, the decrease in pressure slows down and converges to a substantially constant value (process IV). When this point is reached, an almost completely solidified coating is obtained.” With Figure 7), and determines a dry condition of the drying processing target based on whether the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber after lapse of a predetermined time in a state where the decompressing of the inside of the drying chamber is stopped, rises from the predetermined pressure (Goto Figure 6 with “ In the present embodiment, based on such a pressure change in the accommodation space 23, it is determined whether or not the drying of the liquid film has been completed, that is, whether or not the evaporation of all the solvents has been completed ( Step S4). Specifically, after the start of the drying process, the pressure change in the accommodation space 23 is continuously measured by the pressure gauge 54 to obtain a pressure behavior like an actual pressure curve 62. Then, when the determination unit 46 determines that the measured pressure has reached the set pressure PS, the drying process may be terminated. In FIG. 7, it means that the time t4 has elapsed and this state has been reached” where the threshold value is the pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying procedure of Okada with the additional drying of Goto to ensure that the substrate is dried to a required amount.
Regarding claim 9, Okada teaches a drying apparatus (Figure 2) and method of operation that discloses controlling a drying chamber and a decompressor that decompresses an inside of the drying chamber where a drying processing target is held, thereby decompressing the inside of the drying chamber and executing a drying processing of evaporating and removing moisture from the drying processing target (Drying chamber 2 per ¶ 62, 65, and 70).
Okada is silent with respect that after the drying processing, reducing a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber to a predetermined pressure lower than a pressure at a time of the drying processing, and determining a dry condition of the drying processing target based on whether the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber after lapse of a predetermined time in a state where the decompressing of the inside of the drying chamber is stopped, rises from the predetermined pressure.
However, Goto teaches a substrate treating and drying device that discloses after the drying processing, reducing a pressure of the inside of the drying chamber to a predetermined pressure lower than a pressure at a time of the drying processing (Additional drying procedure per “When almost all the solvent is volatilized, the pressure is reduced again to the set pressure PS (process III). Then, when the pressure reaches substantially the set pressure PS as after the time t3 has passed, the decrease in pressure slows down and converges to a substantially constant value (process IV). When this point is reached, an almost completely solidified coating is obtained.” With Figure 7), and determining a dry condition of the drying processing target based on whether the pressure of the inside of the drying chamber after lapse of a predetermined time in a state where the decompressing of the inside of the drying chamber is stopped, rises from the predetermined pressure (Goto Figure 6 with “ In the present embodiment, based on such a pressure change in the accommodation space 23, it is determined whether or not the drying of the liquid film has been completed, that is, whether or not the evaporation of all the solvents has been completed ( Step S4). Specifically, after the start of the drying process, the pressure change in the accommodation space 23 is continuously measured by the pressure gauge 54 to obtain a pressure behavior like an actual pressure curve 62. Then, when the determination unit 46 determines that the measured pressure has reached the set pressure PS, the drying process may be terminated. In FIG. 7, it means that the time t4 has elapsed and this state has been reached” where the threshold value is the pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying procedure of Okada with the additional drying of Goto to ensure that the substrate is dried to a required amount.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0257399 (Okada) in view of JP 2006-194577 (Goto) and further in view of US 2018/0286726 (Rebstock hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Okada’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the drying processing target is a wafer storage container including a front opening unified pod (FOUP) and a front opening shipping box (FOSB).
However, Rebstock teaches a substrate treatment system that discloses the use of a wafer storage container including a front opening unified pod (FOUP) or a front opening shipping box (FOSB) (¶ 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wafer treatment apparatus of Okada with the wafer storage structure of Rebstock to ensure that semiconductors are stored in a clean and sterile environment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202823972 (Hiramoto hereinafter) in view of US 2018/0257399 (Okada) and further in view of JP 2006-194577 (Goto).
Regarding claim 10, Hiramoto teaches a vacuum cleaning device for a substrate treatment device that discloses a cleaning chamber configured to supply a cleaning liquid to a wafer storage container, thereby cleaning the wafer storage container (¶ 23 and 24).
Hiramoto is silent with respect to a drying apparatus configured to vacuum-dry the wafer storage container cleaned in the cleaning chamber, wherein the drying apparatus is the drying apparatus according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Okada and Goto is outlined above in the rejection of claim 1 above that discloses a drying apparatus configured to vacuum-dry the wafer storage container cleaned in the cleaning chamber, wherein the drying apparatus is the drying apparatus according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cleaning apparatus of Hiramoto with the drying system of Okada/Goto to ensure that the substrate is properly dried.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights