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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on May 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) all of the claims are properly presented in the same application; (2) undue diverse searching should not be required; and (3) all claims should be examined together.
This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takehiko et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2004/0253833 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Takehiko et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 3, 4, 8) comprising: a rotor configured to hold and rotate a substrate (Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0066-0068); a first processing liquid supply configured to supply a first processing liquid for
etching to a processing target surface of the substrate that is being rotated by the rotor,
thereby etching the processing target surface (Paragraph 0087 – feed nozzle 60); and a second processing liquid supply configured to supply a second processing liquid for oxidation to the processing target surface of the substrate that is being rotated by the rotor, thereby forming an oxide film (Paragraph 0094, 0071), consecutively to the etching by the supplying of the first processing liquid (Paragraphs 0066-0068).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
Regarding claim 6, Takehiko et al. teach wherein the second processing liquid supplied by the second processing liquid supply includes hydrogen peroxide or ozone water. (Paragraph 0094 – ozone water)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiko et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2004/0253833 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a cleaning liquid supply configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the processing target surface of the substrate, thereby cleaning the processing target surface, consecutively to the forming the oxide film.
Regarding claim 2:
Takehiko et al. teach the structural limitation of a cleaning liquid supply configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the processing target surface of the substrate, thereby cleaning the processing target surface. (Paragraph 0091 – supply source 121)
The difference between Takehiko et al. and claim 2 is cleaning after the oxide film formation.
Takehiko et al. suggest that the deposition of the oxide film prevents watermarks which allows cleaning or drying after the etching. Specifically Takehiko et al. teach that the oxide film improves hydrophilicity and reduces watermark defects during subsequent wet processing and drying. Having a cleaning step after the oxide formation would have been predictable use of the disclosed properties of the oxide film and would have yielded an expected benefit of improved cleaning and reduced watermark formation. (Paragraphs 0003, 0096)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Takehiko et al. is that it allows for reducing watermark formation. (Paragraphs 0003, 0096)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Takehiko et al. because it allows for preventing watermarks.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiko et al. as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Tanaka (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0004993 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is a first chamber configured to accommodate the rotor and perform the etching the processing target surface and the forming the oxide film; and a second chamber different from the first chamber and configured to clean the processing target surface having the oxide film formed by the supplying of the second processing liquid.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches utilizing separate chambers for etching and cleaning. (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0043)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tanaka is that it allows for performing the processes separately. (Fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Takehiko et al. by utilizing the features of Tanaka because it allows for performing the processes separately.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiko et al. as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Hinode et al. (JP 2014-072389 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first processing liquid supplied by the first processing liquid supply includes phosphoric acid.
Regarding claim 4, Hinode et al. that phosphoric acid can be utilized to improve etching rate. (See Abstract)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the processing target surface of the substrate includes a nitride film and an oxide film, and the etching is targeted at the nitride film.
Regarding claim 5, Hinode et al. teach the processing target surface of the substrate includes a nitride film and an oxide film and the etching is targeted at the nitride film. (Paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0028)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second processing liquid supplied by the second processing liquid supply includes hydrogen peroxide or ozone water.
Regarding claim 7, Takehiko et al. already teach ozone water. (Paragraph 0094 – ozone water)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Hinode et al. is that it allows for improving etching rate. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Takehiko et al. by utilizing the features of Hinode because it allows for improving etching rate.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiko et al. as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (JP 2019-207923 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: a heater configured to heat the second processing liquid before supplying the second processing liquid to the processing target surface.
Regarding claim 8, Abe et al. teach providing an oxidizing agent at a temperature that is 60 degrees C or higher. (Paragraphs 0023-0025, 0027)
Since Abe et al. teach supplying a hydrogen peroxide solution at 60 degrees C or higher to promote oxidation and formation of a thicker chemical oxide film and identifies an elevated liquid temperature as desirable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a heater in the cleaning liquid supply system to heat the cleaning liquid before dispensing it to the substrate, since doing so is a predictable and routine means of providing liquid at the heated temperature and would have achieve the benefit of promoting oxidation.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Abe et al. is that it allows for promoting oxidation for film formation. (Paragraphs 0023-0025, 0027)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Takehiko et al. by utilizing the features of Abe et al. because it allows for promoting oxidation for film formation.
Claim(s) 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiko et al. as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (JP 2019-220514 A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second processing liquid supply includes:
a first supply nozzle configured to supply the second processing liquid toward a center of the processing target surface of the substrate that is being rotated by the rotor, and a second supply nozzle configured to supply the second processing liquid toward an outer periphery of the processing target surface of the substrate that is being rotated by the rotor.
Regarding claim 9:
Takehiko et al. already teach a first supply nozzle configured to supply the second processing liquid toward a center of the processing target surface of the substrate that is being rotated by the rotor. (See Takehiko et al. and also Takehiko et al. Paragraphs 0063, 0064, 0073, 0074, 0076, 0094)
Fujita et al. teach a supply nozzle configured to supply an oxidative processing liquid toward an outer periphery of the processing target surface of the substrate that is being rotated by the rotor. (See Abstract; Fig. 9, Paragraphs 0053, 0054)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Fujita et al. is that it allows for oxidation of the outer periphery. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Takehiko et al. by utilizing the features of Fujita et al. (i.e. utilizing a second nozzle) because it allows for oxidation of the outer periphery.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second processing liquid supply includes,
a first swinging arm having a front end at which the first supply nozzle is installed,
a second swinging arm having a front end at which the second supply nozzle is
installed, and a swinging base configured to swing the first swinging arm and the second
swinging arm to move the first supply nozzle and the second supply nozzle between a
supply position facing the processing target surface of the substrate and a retreat position
retreated from the supply position.
Regarding claim 10, Takehiko et al. and Fujita et al. already teach in combination first and second nozzles. (See Takehiko et al. and Fujita et al. discussed above)
Takehiko et al. further suggest that a nozzle can have a swinging arm and be brought into a supply position and a retreat position. (See Takehiko et al. discussed above and also Figs. 3, 10) This teaching would equally apply to the combination of Takehiko et al. and Fujita et al.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Fujita et al. is that it allows for oxidation of the outer periphery. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Takehiko et al. by utilizing the features of Fujita et al. (i.e. utilizing a second nozzle) because it allows for oxidation of the outer periphery.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiko et al. as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Kurokawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2013/0025636 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first processing liquid supply includes:
a processing liquid holder configured to hold a processing liquid between the processing liquid holder and the substrate when approaching the substrate held on the rotor; a lift configured to raise and lower the processing liquid holder with respect to the substrate; a heater installed on a surface opposite to a surface of the processing liquid holder facing the substrate held on the rotor; and an ejection port formed in the processing liquid holder and configured to eject
the first processing liquid to the processing target surface of the substrate, and wherein the second processing liquid supply is configured to supply the second processing liquid to the processing target surface of the substrate from the ejection port.
Regarding claim 11:
Kurokawa et al. teach a processing liquid holder configured to hold a processing liquid between the processing liquid holder and the substrate when approaching the substrate held on the rotor (See Abstract; Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0029-0034);
Kurokawa et al. teach a lift configured to raise and lower the processing liquid holder with respect to the substrate (Paragraph 0031);
Takehiko et al. teach a heater installed on a surface opposite to a surface of the processing liquid holder facing the substrate held on the rotor (Paragraph 0059); and
an ejection port formed in the processing liquid holder and configured to eject
the first processing liquid to the processing target surface of the substrate (Paragraph 0032 – H2SO4), and
wherein the second processing liquid supply is configured to supply the second processing liquid to the processing target surface of the substrate from the ejection port (Paragraph 0032 – H2O2).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kurokawa et al. is that it allows for using the treatment solutions more effectively. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Takehiko et al. by utilizing the features of Kurokawa et al. because it allows for using the treatment solutions more effectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 is indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claim limitation of claim 1 in combination with wherein the first
processing liquid supply includes: an ejection port configured to eject the first processing liquid to the processing target surface of the substrate; a heater configured to heat the first processing liquid supplied onto the processing target surface of the substrate; and a lift configured to raise and lower the heater with respect to the substrate, wherein the second processing liquid supply includes a supply nozzle configured to supply the second processing liquid toward a center of the processing target surface of the substrate, wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a controller configured to control the first processing liquid supply and the second processing liquid supply, wherein the controller controls the first processing liquid supply and the second processing liquid supply such that the etching is performed by causing the heater to approach the substrate to heat the first processing liquid while ejecting the first processing liquid from the ejection port, and consecutively to the etching, the heater is separated, and the second processing liquid is ejected from the supply nozzle toward the processing target surface of the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights