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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12 are 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.
As to claims 1, 4-9, 11-12:
The applicants amended the claims to recite:
“spraying the semiconductor substrate with a gas atomized wetting agent produced by spraying an atomizing gas into a liquid stream of wetting liquid, the atomizing gas having a higher solubility in the wetting agent than oxygen”.
The applicants have not indicated which part of the original disclosure supports the newly introduced limitation.
The examiner was not able to find the support for the newly introduced limitation in the original disclosure.
As to claim 9:
The applicants amended claim 9 to recite:
“the semiconductor substrate is sprayed with:
1-1500 milliliter per minute of wetting; and 15-200 liters per minute of atomizing gas”.
The applicants have not indicated which part of the original disclosure supports the newly introduced limitation.
The examiner was not able to find the support for the newly introduced limitation in the original disclosure.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-14, 21, 23-25, 27-28 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.
As to claims 1, 4-9, 11-12:
The claims are further indefinite because the term “the features” in claim 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claims are further indefinite and incomplete because claim 1 recites “wetting the features of a semiconductor substrate to remove gas bubbles entrapped in the features of the semiconductor substrate” but fails to recite any step(s) to provide referenced “gas bubbles entrapped in the features of the semiconductor substrate”.
Claims 7 and 8 are further indefinite because the term “the processing of the semiconductor substrate” in claim 7 lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear how what is recited by claim 7 is related to the subject matter of the parent claim.
Claim 9 is further indefinite because it appears that some text is missing in the third line of the claim.
The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear how what is recited by claim 9 is related to the subject matter of the parent claim.
Claim 11 is further indefinite because the term “the duration” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 is further indefinite because the term “the speed of rotating the substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear how what is recited by this claim is related to the subject matter of the parent claim.
As to claims 13-14:
The claims are indefinite because claim 13 recites:
“to remove gas bubbles entrapped in the features of the semiconductor substrate” but fails to recite any step(s) to provide referenced “gas bubbles entrapped in the features of the semiconductor substrate”.
Claim 14 is further indefinite because the term “the atomizing gas” in claim 14 lacks proper antecedent basis.
As to claims 21, 23-25 and 27-28:
The claims are indefinite because the terms “the features of the semiconductor substrate”, “the features”, the semiconductor substrate” in claim 21 lack proper antecedent basis.
The claims are further indefinite because claim 21 recites:
“to remove gas bubbles entrapped in the features of the semiconductor substrate” but fails to recite any structure to provide referenced “gas bubbles entrapped in the features of the semiconductor substrate”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao et al (US 2021/0296115).
Yao et al teach a method as claimed.
The method comprises supplying a gas as claimed into the chamber wherein the substrate as claimed is disposed, spraying the substrate with an atomized wetting agent as claimed atomized and wetting plurality features of the substrate.
See at least Figures 1, 4, 5, 7-9 and the related description and the description at [0005-11], [0045-79].
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11-13, 21, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al (US 2008/0230092).
Ko et al teach a method and an apparatus as claimed.
The apparatus comprises:
A sealable processing chamber (at least [0019]);
A rotatable head 109;
A coupler 110;
A spray nozzle 114, 214;
A source of fluid 150;
A source of gas 135;
An actuator (control arm (at least [0021], [0025]).
See at least Figures 1-3 and the related description.
Ko et al also teach fluids and gases as claimed.
The method comprises:
Spraying the substrate from the atomizing nozzle 114, 214;
Rotating the substrate at the claimed rotating speed (at least [0028], [0034], Figures 1, 3, 4);
Wetting and cleaning the features on the substrate;
Supplying gases as claimed (nitrogen);
Using the fluids (aqueous solutions);
Processing for the claimed times (at least [0031]).
See at least Figures 1-4 and the related description and the description at [0016-37].
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 14, 23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US 2008/0230092) in view of McHugh et al (US 2018/0182664).
As to claims 4, 14, 23:
Ko et al do not exemplify the use of gases as claimed.
However, McHugh et al teach that the claimed gases were known analogues gases with the gases exemplified by Ko et al.
See at least [0010], [0018], [0038].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use the gases recited by McHugh et al in the method of Ko et al since McHugh et al teaches the referenced gases as known alternatives for the gases exemplified by Ko et al.
As to claims 8 and 28:
Ko et al as applied above do not specifically teach application of vacuum/ providing a vacuums source.
However, McHugh et al teach that it was known to apply vacuum/provide vacuum source in order to lower the chamber pressure and teach benefits of such. See at least [0006-11], [0026], [0030-34], [0040-41].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide in Ko et al application of vacuum/vacuums source in order to obtain benefits disclosed by McHugh et al.
Claim(s) 9 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al (US 2008/0230092).
As to claim 9:
This claim is indefinite for the reasons provided above and could not be properly understood.
Ko et al as applied above teaches a method as recited by claim 9 except for the flow rates of the solution and the gas.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum flow rates of the fluids depending from the specific equipment used and the application requirements in order to ensure proper processing recited by Ko et al.
As to claim 24:
Ko et al as applied above do not specifically teach the use of multiple nozzles.
However, it has been held that hat mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the use of a plurality of the nozzles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims and allege that the amended claims correspond to the requirements of 35 USC 112.
This is not persuasive for the reasons presented above.
The amended claims have been examined and are addressed in the rejections above.
The applicants further allege that the amended claims are allowable over the art.
This is not persuasive fir the reasons provided above.
The amended claims have been examined and addressed in the rejections above.
It is noted that the applicants allege that Ko et al do not teach the use of water.
This is not persuasive.
In contrast to the applicants’ allegation Ko et al teach the use of water.
See at least [0011], [0020], [0022], [0036-37].
It is further noted that the applicants allege that Ko et al do not teach the use of gases with the solubility as claimed. This is not persuasive because Ko et al teach the use of the same gases as disclosed by the applicants in the specification.
It is also noted that the applicants allege that Yao et al do not teach the use of gases with the solubility as claimed. This is not persuasive because Yao et al teach the use of the same gases as disclosed by the applicants in the specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711