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
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species A1 (claims 1-3 & 5-6) in the reply filed on 10/07/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction between Invention I (e.g., method of Claim 1) and Invention II (e.g., apparatus of Claim 7) on the ground that Claim 7 has been amended to depend on Claim 1. Applicant appears to argue that the two inventions are no longer independent. This is not persuasive because the two inventions are still distinct. See MPEP § 802.01. For example, the apparatus can still perform a materially different process such as an etching process, a coating process, etc. See MPEP § 806.05(e).
The restriction requirement is still proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-3 & 5-6 are examined on the merits. Non-elected Claims 4 & 7 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Center line “BX”
417c, 417d, 417e, 417f
Recess “48”
Pressure “Ps”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
212a, 212b, 212c, 212d, 212e, 215 in Fig. 5
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, in Fig. 7, character “Pc” is used to designate two locations on the “pressure” axis.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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:
Pg. 15-21 cite to Fig. 5, but the contents on those pages are inconsistent with the elements shown in Fig. 5. For example, all reference numbers starting with 4xx (e.g., 415, 417, 419, 437, etc.) do not appear in Fig. 5. Fig. 5 uses reference numbers 2xx, whereas Fig. 4 uses reference numbers 4xx.
Pg. 21 line 14-16 states: “More specifically, as shown by dotted lines in FIG. 4, the substrate S is transferred with the support tray 415 pulled out to the outside of the chamber.” This sentence appears to refer to Fig. 3, not Fig. 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
In claim 1 line 5, “boosting the processing chamber” should be changed to “boosting a pressure of the processing chamber. This is because the chamber itself is not boosted (i.e., the chamber is not lifted or raised), but rather the chamber’s pressure.
In claim 1 line 8, “boosting the processing chamber” should be changed to “boosting the pressure of the processing chamber. This is because the chamber itself is not boosted (i.e., the chamber is not lifted or raised), but rather the chamber’s pressure.
In claim 1 line 9, “the processing chamber boosted to the first pressure” should be changed to “the processing chamber whose pressure is boosted to the first pressure.”
Alternatively, the entire step (c) may be simplified as follows:
(c) boosting the pressure of the processing chamber from the first pressure to a second pressure by supplying the processing fluid to the processing chamber
In Claim 6 line 6, “the liquid remaining in the pattern” should be changed to “the liquid adhering to the pattern formed surface” to maintain consistency in the claim language.
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.
Claims 1-3 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a surface” at line 2. It’s unclear whose surface is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “a subcritical state” at line 6. It’s unclear whose subcritical state is being referred to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites “applying vibration to the substrate in a pressure boosting period until the processing chamber enters the supercritical state from start of the operation (b)” at lines 12-13. It’s unclear if vibration is applied for the entirety of the pressure boosting period or just a portion of the pressure boosting period. The specification discloses that: a time period from T1 to T4 corresponds to “pressure boosting period” (see pg. 31 line 5-7; see rising slope in Fig. 7), and the vibration is applied to the substrate between T2 and T3, which is just a portion of the “pressure boosting period” (see pg. 26 & Fig. 7).
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as follows:
The phrase “until the processing chamber enters the supercritical state from start of the operation (b)” refers to the scope of the term “pressure boosting period”;
It’s not required to apply vibration for the entirety of the pressure boosting period, as long as vibration is applied “in” the pressure boosting period.
Claim 1 recites “the processing chamber enters the supercritical state” at line 12-13, but this conflicts with the clause “a processing fluid in a supercritical state” recited in lines 2-3. In other words, the term “supercritical state” is being used to refer to both the processing fluid and the processing chamber. Moreover, it’s unclear how a chamber can enter a supercritical state. Clarification is requested.
Claims 2-3 are rejected because they depend on Claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the substrate in the subcritical state” at line 2. As explained above, it’s unclear whose subcritical state is being referred to. Also, it’s unclear how a substrate can have a subcritical state. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites “the pattern formed surface” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “pattern formed surface” at lines 2-4. It’s unclear if this is the same as or different from the term “a surface” recited in Claim 1 line 2. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites “the pattern” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKUTSU (Japanese Publication JP2003031547A, as translated by Espacenet), in view of SUZUKI et al. (US PGPUB 20250391652).
Regarding claim 1, IKUTSU teaches a substrate processing method for drying a substrate (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0018-20, 0030-33) having a liquid film of an organic solvent (a rinse liquid such as ethanol, 2-propanol (IPA), see ¶¶ 0030, 0038) formed in a liquid-filled state on a surface (see ¶¶ 0018-19, 0031-32, while the substrate is wet with the rinse liquid). IKUTSU teaches that such substrate is dried by a processing fluid in a supercritical state (see ¶¶ 0019-20, 0032-33, drying the substrate with supercritical CO2).
IKUTSU’s method comprises: (a) accommodating the substrate into a processing chamber (see Figs. 1, 4, 5, ¶¶ 0018, 0031, substrate 104 is placed in chamber 101).
IKUTSU’s method comprises: (b) boosting the processing chamber from an initial pressure to a first pressure by supplying the processing fluid to the processing chamber (see ¶¶ 0018-19, 0031-32, liquefied CO2 is supplied into chamber 101 to increase the chamber pressure to 7.5 MPa), wherein “first pressure” is any arbitrarily chosen pressure below 7.38 MPa, the critical pressure of CO2. As a non-limiting list of examples, “first pressure” may be chosen as 6.0 MPa, 6.5 MPa, 6.75 MPa, 7.0 MPa, 7.25 MPa, etc. In other words, when the chamber pressure is at a first pressure below 7.38 MPa—as the chamber pressure is on its way towards 7.5 MPa—the liquefied CO2 in the chamber would’ve reached subcritical state.
IKUTSU’s method comprises: (c) boosting the processing chamber to a second pressure by supplying the processing fluid (see ¶¶ 0019-20, 0032-33, CO2 continues to be supplied into chamber 101 to increase chamber pressure to 7.5 MPa) to the processing chamber boosted to the first pressure (as explained above), the supercritical state being reached at the second pressure (see ¶¶ 0019-20, 0032-33, supercritical state is reached).
IKUTSU’s method comprises: (d) reducing a film thickness of the liquid film (see Figs. 2A-2C, ¶¶ 0021-22, the film of rinse liquid 203 disappears over time) while maintaining the liquid-filled state (see ¶¶ 0018-19, 0021-22, 0032, Figs. 2A-2B, while the rinse liquid 203 is still present on the substrate). IKUTSU teaches that the film thickness is reduced by applying vibration to the substrate (see ¶¶ 0018-19, 0021-22, 0032) in a time period before the chamber enters supercritical state and after starting the supply of CO2 (see ¶¶ 0018-22, 0031-32), i.e., a time period that falls within the recited “pressure boosting period until the processing chamber enters the supercritical state from start of the operation (b).”
IKUTSU does not explicitly teach that, in step (b), the chamber pressure is boosted from “atmospheric pressure” (i.e., the initial pressure is “atmospheric pressure”), but this is implicitly taught or reasonably expected. That’s because IKUTSU teaches that chamber 101 is first opened to load the substrate (see ¶¶ 0018, 0031)—i.e., the chamber is open to atmospheric pressure—before the chamber is closed and supplied with CO2.
Alternatively, if IKUTSU’s teachings do not clearly envisage boosting the chamber pressure from an initial pressure that’s “atmospheric pressure,” this is still considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the substrate processing art that, when performing supercritical drying, the chamber pressure is boosted from an initial pressure that’s atmospheric pressure (see SUZUKI at ¶ 0053). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-21 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of IKUTSU and SUZUKI teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1. As explained above, vibration is applied to the substrate in a time period before the chamber enters supercritical state (see IKUTSU at ¶¶ 0018-22, 0031-32). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand or reasonably expect that the time period of vibrating the substrate includes or at least overlaps with a time period in which the substrate is in the subcritical state in operation (d).
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI et al. (US PGPUB 20250391652), in view of IKUTSU (Japanese Publication JP2003031547A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, SUZUKI teaches a substrate processing method for drying a substrate (supercritical drying, see ¶¶ 0050-57) having a liquid film of an organic solvent formed in a liquid-filled state on a surface (see ¶ 0051, substrate W has IPA thereon), wherein the substrate is dried by a processing fluid in a supercritical state (see ¶¶ 0054-55).
SUZUKI’s method comprises: (a) accommodating the substrate into a processing chamber (see Fig. 3, ¶ 0051, substrate W is loaded into chamber 211).
SUZUKI’s method comprises: (b) boosting the processing chamber from an atmospheric pressure (see ¶ 0053, initial chamber pressure is atmospheric) to a first pressure by supplying the processing fluid to the processing chamber (see ¶¶ 0052-55, CO2 is supplied into chamber 211 to gradually increase the chamber pressure to approximately 16 MPa), wherein “first pressure” is any arbitrarily chosen pressure below 7.38 MPa, the critical pressure of CO2. As a non-limiting list of examples, “first pressure” may be chosen as 6.0 MPa, 6.5 MPa, 6.75 MPa, 7.0 MPa, 7.25 MPa, etc. In other words, when the chamber pressure is at a first pressure below 7.38 MPa—as the chamber pressure is on its way towards approximately 16 MPa—the CO2 in the chamber would’ve reached subcritical state.
SUZUKI’s method comprises: (c) boosting the processing chamber to a second pressure by supplying the processing fluid (see ¶¶ 0052-55, CO2 continues to be supplied into chamber 211 to increase the chamber pressure to approximately 16 MPa) to the processing chamber boosted to the first pressure (as explained above). SUZUKI teaches that the supercritical state being reached at the second pressure (see ¶ 0054-55).
SUZUKI does not explicitly teach: “(d) reducing a film thickness of the liquid film while maintaining the liquid-filled state by applying vibration to the substrate in a pressure boosting period until the processing chamber enters the supercritical state from start of the operation (b).”
IKUTSU teaches a supercritical drying method that comprises: (d) reducing a film thickness of the liquid film (see Figs. 2A-2C, ¶¶ 0021-22, the film of rinse liquid 203 disappears over time) while maintaining the liquid-filled state (see ¶¶ 0018-19, 0021-22, 0032, Figs. 2A-2B, while the rinse liquid 203 is still present on the substrate). IKUTSU teaches that the film thickness is reduced by applying vibration to the substrate (see ¶¶ 0018-19, 0021-22, 0032) in a time period before the chamber enters supercritical state and after starting the supply of CO2 (see ¶¶ 0018-22, 0031-32), i.e., a time period that falls within the recited “pressure boosting period until the processing chamber enters the supercritical state from start of the operation (b).” The vibration increases the diffusion or mixing between the rinse liquid (e.g., IPA) and the CO2, thereby enhancing the removal of the rinse liquid (see ¶¶ 0022, 0024).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify SUZUKI’s method to incorporate a step of “(d) reducing a film thickness of the liquid film while maintaining the liquid-filled state by applying vibration to the substrate in a pressure boosting period until the processing chamber enters the supercritical state from start of the operation (b),” with reasonable expectation of enhancing the removal of the rinse liquid (e.g., IPA). First, vibrating the substrate increases the diffusion or mixing between the rinse liquid (e.g., IPA) and the CO2, thereby enhancing the removal of the rinse liquid; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate step (d) into SUZUKI’s method. Second, it’s well known in the art for a supercritical drying method to comprise a step of “(d) reducing a film thickness of the liquid film while maintaining the liquid-filled state by applying vibration to the substrate in a pressure boosting period until the processing chamber enters the supercritical state from start of the operation (b).” All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-21; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of SUZUKI and IKUTSU teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1.
The combination teaches that operation (a) includes: (a-3) placing the substrate on a support tray (see SUZUKI at Fig. 3, ¶ 0051, placing substrate W on tray 212), and (a-4) moving the support tray into the processing chamber with the substrate placed on the support tray (see SUZUKI at Fig. 3, ¶ 0051). The combination teaches that the vibration is applied to the substrate in the operation (d) (as explained above).
The combination does not explicitly teach that vibration is applied to the substrate by “actuating a vibrator mounted in the support tray.” But IKUTSU teaches that a vibrator may be mounted in the support tray (see IKUTSU at Figs. 1 & 5, ¶¶ 0026, 0028), and the substrate is vibrated by actuating such vibrator (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of SUZUKI and IKUTSU to incorporate a vibrator mounted in the support tray (i.e., tray 212 of SUZUKI) and actuate such vibrator to vibrate the substrate, with reasonable expectation of increasing diffusion or mixing. It’s already well known in the art to mount a vibrator in the support tray and to actuate such vibrator to vibrate the substrate. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of SUZUKI and IKUTSU teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1. As explained above, vibration is applied to the substrate in a time period before the chamber enters supercritical state (see IKUTSU at ¶¶ 0018-22, 0031-32). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand or reasonably expect that the time period of vibrating the substrate includes or at least overlaps with a time period in which the substrate is in the subcritical state in operation (d).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of SUZUKI and IKUTSU teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1.
The combination teaches (e) forming the liquid film (e.g., IPA film) on the pattern formed surface (see SUZUKI at ¶ 0081) after a liquid adhering to the pattern formed surface is replaced by the organic solvent (e.g., IPA) by supplying the organic solvent to the pattern formed surface adhered with the liquid (see SUZUKI at Figs. 4I-4J, ¶¶ 0079-81, IPA is supplied to substrate W’s patterned surface to replace water-repellent agent SM, thereby forming the IPA film on the substrate). The combination teaches that operation (e) is performed before operation (a) (see SUZUKI at Figs. 2, 4I-4J, ¶ 0083, IPA film is formed in liquid processing unit 100, before the substrate is dried in supercritical drying unit 200; see id. at Fig. 3, ¶ 0051, substrate W needs to be loaded into chamber 211 to perform supercritical drying).
The combination teaches that the liquid remains in the pattern (see SUZUKI at ¶ 0087, small amounts of water-repellent agent may remain on the substrate’s front surface; see id. at ¶¶ 0038, 0081, the patterns are on the front surface). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand or reasonably expect that, by applying the vibration to the substrate in the operation (d), the liquid remaining in the pattern would be mixed with the organic solvent in parallel with thinning of the liquid film. As explained above, vibrating the substrate increases the diffusion or mixing between the fluids (see IKUTSU at ¶¶ 0022, 0024), as well as reduces the thickness of the liquid film (see IKUTSU at Figs. 2A-2C, ¶¶ 0021-22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter. Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claim 2, a dependent claim. The most relevant prior art references are: SUZUKI et al. (US PGPUB 20250391652); IKUTSU (Japanese Publication JP2003031547A); IWATANI et al. (Japanese Publication JP2005116758A). SUZUKI teaches placing a substrate having an IPA film thereon onto a tray, inserting such tray into a supercritical drying chamber, increasing the chamber pressure (from an initial pressure of atmospheric pressure) by introducing CO2 into the chamber until the CO2 reaches a supercritical state. Each of IKUTSU and IWATANI teaches a supercritical drying method that comprises vibrating the substrate in a time period after the start of CO2 supply and before supercritical state is reached.
But the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a substrate processing method with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in Claim 2, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
the operation (a) includes:
(a-1) sandwiching and holding the substrate from a horizontal direction by a plurality of support pins by moving the plurality of support pins toward the substrate while continuously supporting the substrate by the plurality of support pins after a peripheral edge part of the substrate is supported from below by the plurality of support pins provided on a support tray; and
(a-2) moving the support tray into the processing chamber while holding the substrate by the plurality of support pins, and
the vibration is applied to the substrate in the operation (d) by reciprocating the plurality of support pins between a sandwiching position for sandwiching the substrate and a releasing position separated from the sandwiching position.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vibrating the substrate during supercritical drying:
IWATANI et al. (Japanese Publication JP2005116758A, as translated by Espacenet) teaches drying a substrate with IPA film thereon using supercritical CO2 (see ¶¶ 0009, 0022), wherein the substrate is vibrated in a period after CO2 has been introduced and before supercritical state is reached (see ¶¶ 0029-31).
Chamber pressure is boosted from atmospheric pressure:
GOSHI (US PGPUB 20250087501) teaches a supercritical drying method in which the chamber pressure is boosted from an initial pressure that’s atmospheric pressure (see Fig. 6, ¶ 0108).
INADOMI et al. (US PGPUB 20200168482) teaches a supercritical drying method in which the chamber pressure is boosted from an initial pressure that’s atmospheric pressure (see ¶ 0088).
MALEEV et al. (US PGPUB 20190056320) teaches a supercritical drying method in which the chamber pressure is boosted from an initial pressure that’s atmospheric pressure (see Fig. 3, ¶ 0037).
EGASHIRA et al. (US PGPUB 20180264504) teaches a supercritical drying method in which the chamber pressure is boosted from an initial pressure that’s atmospheric pressure (see Fig. 7A, ¶ 0119).
OHNO et al. (US PGPUB 20180138035) teaches a supercritical drying method in which the chamber pressure is boosted from an initial pressure that’s atmospheric pressure (see Fig. 6, ¶ 0074).
HONG et al. (US PGPUB 20160059277) teaches a supercritical drying method in which the chamber pressure is boosted from an initial pressure that’s atmospheric pressure (see Fig. 8, ¶ 0123).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714