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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: it reads “the second ejection angle” however it should be “the first” as set forth in the paragraph 0050 in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sugimoto (JP 2002203830).
Sugimoto teaches a substrate cleaning apparatus that brings a cleaning tool (41) into sliding contact with a surface of a substrate (W) while rotating the substrate to perform scrub-cleaning, the substrate cleaning apparatus comprising: a cleaning tool drive mechanism (42) configured to retract the cleaning tool from the surface of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning; and a cleaning liquid supply unit (51, 61) configured to eject a cleaning liquid to the surface of the substrate to perform a rinsing process of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning, wherein a temperature of the cleaning liquid in the rinsing process is set to 0 to 20 degree Celsius (the temperature is between 20-28 degrees).
With regards to claim 3, the cleaning liquid supply unit includes a first cleaning liquid supply unit (61) configured to supply the cleaning liquid toward a vicinity of a center of the substrate and a second cleaning liquid supply unit (51) configured to supply the cleaning liquid in a spray form toward a region between the center and an edge of the substrate, and when an ejection angle of the cleaning liquid by the first cleaning liquid supply unit with respect to the surface of the substrate is defined as a first ejection angle, and an ejection angle of the cleaning liquid by the second cleaning liquid supply unit with respect to the surface of the substrate is defined as a second ejection angle, the first ejection angle is smaller than the second ejection angle (figure 8 shows that the first angle is about 90 degrees and the second angle is about 45 degrees).
With regards to claim 7, Sugimoto teaches a substrate cleaning method comprising: bringing a cleaning tool (41) into sliding contact with a surface of a substrate (W) while rotating the substrate to perform scrub-cleaning; retracting the cleaning tool from the surface of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning; and ejecting a cleaning liquid (51, 61) to the surface of the substrate to perform a rinsing process of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning, wherein a temperature of the cleaning liquid in the rinsing process is set to 0 to 20 degrees Celsius (temperature is between 20-28 degrees).
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, 3-4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa (JP 2018056385) in view of Sugimoto (JP ‘830).
Handa teaches a substrate cleaning apparatus that brings a cleaning tool (31, 33a, 33b) into sliding contact with a surface of a substrate (W) while rotating the substrate to perform scrub-cleaning, the substrate cleaning apparatus comprising: a cleaning tool drive mechanism (35) configured to retract the cleaning tool from the surface of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning; and a cleaning liquid supply unit (32a, 32b) configured to eject a cleaning liquid to the surface of the substrate to perform a rinsing process of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning.
With regards to claim 3, the cleaning liquid supply unit includes a first cleaning liquid supply unit (32a) configured to supply the cleaning liquid toward a vicinity of a center of the substrate and a second cleaning liquid supply unit (32b) configured to supply the cleaning liquid in a spray form toward a region between the center and an edge of the substrate, and when an ejection angle of the cleaning liquid by the first cleaning liquid supply unit with respect to the surface of the substrate is defined as a first ejection angle, and an ejection angle of the cleaning liquid by the second cleaning liquid supply unit with respect to the surface of the substrate is defined as a second ejection angle, the first ejection angle is smaller than the second ejection angle (figure 12 shows the different angles).
With regards to claim 4, the first ejection angle is in a range of 5 to 10 degrees (abstract).
With regards to claim 7, Handa teaches a substrate cleaning method comprising: bringing a cleaning tool (31, 33a, 33b) into sliding contact with a surface of a substrate (W) while rotating the substrate to perform scrub-cleaning; retracting the cleaning tool from the surface of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning; and ejecting a cleaning liquid (32c, 32b) to the surface of the substrate to perform a rinsing process of the substrate after the scrub-cleaning.
With regards to claim 8, Handa teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a polishing unit (3) configured to perform a polishing process on the substrate; and the substrate cleaning apparatus according to claim 1 configured to perform a cleaning process on the substrate after the polishing process.
Handa teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the temperature of the cleaning liquid in the rinsing process is set to 0 to 20 degree Celsius (claim 1 and 7). Sugimoto teaches a substrate cleaning apparatus with a liquid supply unit that ejects a cleaning liquid in the rinsing process that is set to 20-28 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature of the cleaning liquid so that it is 20 degrees as taught by Sugimoto to ensure that proper cleaning is occurring.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (JP ‘830) or Handa (JP 2018056385) in view of Sugimoto (JP ‘830).
Sugimoto and Handa in view of Sugimoto teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach that the temperature of the cleaning liquid supplied in the rinsing process is lower than a temperature of the cleaning liquid supplied in the scrub-cleaning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature of the cleaning liquid in the rinsing process since it is well know that high temperature liquids are better are removing residue from a surface. Using a different temperatures for each of the cleaning liquids will help to ensure that all the residue is removed.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa (JP ‘385) and Sugimoto (JP ‘830) further in view of Hamada (JP 2009260034).
Handa and Sugimoto teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach a rotating mechanism that rotates at two different speeds. Hamada teaches a substrate rotating mechanism configured to rotate the substrate at a predetermined speed, wherein the substrate rotating mechanism is configured to rotate the substrate at a first speed (s2) in a first period (t2) during the rinsing process and rotate the substrate at a second speed (s3) faster than the first speed in a second period (s3) following the first period (claim 5). The first speed in a range of 30 rpm to 150 rpm (10-100 rpm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Handa and Sugimoto so that there are two speeds of rotation as taught by Hamada to optimize the performance of the substate cleaning apparatus to remove all the residue from the surface of the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723