DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-2, 4 and 6-11 in the reply filed on July 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 5 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 20, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the chuck is configured to move along a track with respect to the film formation device (claim 9), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 30 has a typographical error of “CVP” when it should be CVD.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita (US 2014/0124479).
In regards to claim 1, Tomita teaches a resist film forming module comprising a processing unit (41) for processing a wafer (W), comprising:
a spin chuck (51) which provides a surface (configured) for off-center placement of the wafer (center of wafer P2), with respect to a rotational axis of the spin chuck (P1) (fig. 6-7, 14-15; para. 65, 69);
a resist supply nozzles (42) connected to a moving part (45), where the resist supply nozzles dispense a resist film (50) onto a surface of the wafer (fig. 6-7, 14-15; para. 64, 68-69);
the spin chuck rotates with respect to the resist supply nozzles (para. 68-69).
Tomita does not explicitly teach a shape control material that has its internal stress modified when reactive to a certain type of reaction.
However, the particular type of substrate or processing materials used is a process limitation rather than an apparatus limitation, and the recitation of a particular type of substrate or processing materials do not limit an apparatus claim (MPEP2115).
As Tomita teaches the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of supplying a shape control material as claimed, to the resist supply nozzles, so that the shape control material is dispensed onto the surface of the wafer, thus fulfilling the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 2, Tomita teaches the wafer is placed on the spin chuck such that a wafer center (P2) of the wafer is located at a first location or a second location with respect to a spin chuck center (P1) (fig. 8, 14-15, 21, 26).
In regards to claim 4, Tomita teaches first location and second location have different distances from spin chuck center (P1) (fig. 8, 14).
In regards to claim 6, Tomita teaches the first location and the second location may have various measurements (fig. 14, 21, 26; para. 93, 96).
In regards to claim 10, Tomita teaches the resist supply nozzles (42, dispense nozzle) are moved by the moving part (45) and capable of the process of locating the nozzles at the edge of the wafer and dispensing material onto the edge of the wafer (fig. 6-7; para. 64-66).
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP2114).
In regards to claim 11, Tomita does not explicitly teach the internal stress of a first portion of the shape control material is modified to become tensile, and the internal stress of a second portion of the shape control material is modified to become compressive.
However, the courts have held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim (MPEP 2115).
As Tomita teaches the structural limitations of the claim, one would be capable of supplying the shape control material as claimed, and achieve the recitations directed to the shape control material.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Okamoto (US 2015/0176139).
In regards to claims 7 and 9, Tomita teaches the spin chuck moves relative to the resist supply nozzles.
Tomita does not explicitly teach the chuck moves along a track with respect to the film formation device.
However, Okamoto teaches a substrate holding mechanism (440) comprising a rotation chuck (443). Okamoto teaches the substrate holding mechanism moves along a guide rail (441, track) to and from an end portion removing mechanism (460) (fig. 4; para. 39, 41, 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the guide rail of Okamoto onto the apparatus of Tomita because it would represent an obvious rearrangement of parts that would not alter the operation of the apparatus in a patentably distinct manner or produce any new and unexpected benefit over the prior art structure (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Foerster (US 2009/0311419).
In regards to claim 8, Tomita does not explicitly teach the chuck is configured to vibrate with respect to the film formation device.
However, Foerster teaches a rotatable chuck (225) which rotates relative to the nozzles (280/290). Foerster teaches a vibrator (310) is connected to the chuck to transmit vibration to the chuck and the wafer (fig. 3; para. 31, 33-34, 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the vibrator connected to the chuck of Foerster onto the spin chuck of Tomita because Foerster teaches it will reduce detects (para. 40, 42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights