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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 6/12/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukano et al. (US2019/0051519A1) in view of Koide et al. (10573508B2).
Re claim 1, Tsukano et al. teach processing a substrate having a pattern (Fig. 10a, paragraph 106) comprising performing a chemical processing to the pattern (paragraphs 37-38 teaches SC-1 and DHF; paragraphs 84-85), followed by a rinsing (paragraphs 39, 86-87), a replacement processing of supplying the organic solvent (paragraphs 40, 93-94), and a liquid fill processing by the organic solvent (i.e. forming an IPA liquid film; paragraphs 40, 94); conveying the substrate from the wet processing device 14 to a supercritical processing device 15, while the liquid-filled state of the organic solvent on the pattern is kept (paragraphs 106-107, 112), and drying the substrate by bringing the processing fluid in a supercritical processing device 15 (paragraphs 25, 34, 112, 116, 118).
Tsukano et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of performing a preliminary organic solvent supplying step. Koide et al. teach a surface treatment apparatus for a semiconductor comprising treating with a chemical solution, followed by IPA treatment prior to and after water rinsing steps (Fig. 2, for example steps S104 is prior to step S107 and steps 104 and 106 occur after the water rinsing step S103), wherein the IPA is used in combination with the chemical solutions to prevent pattern collapse from occurring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tsukano et al. to include a preliminary organic solvent, such as IPA, as taught by Koide et al. to prevent pattern collapse of the semiconductor wafer. Re claims 2-3, the limitations are met as the organic solvent comprises IPA.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukano et al. (US2019/0051519A1) in view of Koide et al. (10573508B2) and further in view of Nagashima et al. (EP 2854165A1).
Tsukano et al. in view of Koide et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of mixing the rinse liquid with the organic solvent by applying vibration while the liquid filled state is maintained. Nagashima et al. teach a magnetic field forming unit that stirs and mixes the cleaning liquid with the volatile solvent to cause vibration, thereby promoting replacement of the cleaning liquid with the volatile solvent (abstract, col. 12, lines 20-25 teaches mixing water with IPA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Tsukano et al. to include mixing the rinsing liquid with the organic solvent by vibration, as taught by Nagashima et al. for purposes of promoting replacement of the cleaning liquid with the organic solvent.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukano et al. (US2019/0051519A1) in view of Koide et al. (10573508B2) and further in view of Okutani et al. (US2014/0127908A1).
Tsukano et al. in view of Koide et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of warming the pattern while the liquid-filled state is maintained during at least one of the chemical processing, conveying or drying. In the abstract, Okutani et al. teach heating the organic solvent on the substrate surface to form a gas film (paragraph 12), wherein the organic solvent liquid film can be properly removed from the upper surface of the substrate without pattern collapse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Tsukano et al. to include warming the pattern while the liquid filled state is maintained, as taught by Okutani et al. for purposes of removing the organic solvent film without causing pattern collapse.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hinode et al. teach a substrate processing method. Cha et al. teach processing comprising a chemical treatment step, rinse, IPA and supercritical drying.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights