DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to communication received on 06-04-2026. The claims 1-14 are pending, of which the claims 1 & 8 are in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claims 1- 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 1 & 8, claims fail to specify what values/parameters are being represented by each of variables b0, b1, and b2. See spec, para. [052]. That is, the claims themselves need to specify that b0 represent “Scale (intercept)”, b1 represent “Attenuation rate (slope)” and b2 represent “Attenuation delay value”.
The claims 2- 7 & 9- 14 are also objected to because of their dependency with objected claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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- 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites following 3 equations but all of them have same functions and same variables to generate 3 different parameters, namely b0, b1, and b2. Specifically, the claim recites:
bo = f(S, V) • • • (3)
b1 = f(S, V) • • • (4)
b2 = f(S, V) • • • (5)
Here, the claim clearly shows that b0, b1, and b2 all are derived as functions of (1) “S: Rotation speed when rotating the etching target” and
(2) “V: Scan speed when reciprocating the etching liquid supply”. However, equation (2) recites “Ratioscan(R) = bo x exp(b1 x T + b2) + C” which shows each of b0, b1, and b2 as separate variables. Hence, the claim fails to clarify how b0, b1, and b2 are related. For example, whether b0=b1=b2 or they are separate or only b0 and b1 are same but b1 and b2 are different something else. Examiner notes, applicant’s specification in para. [043] and [052 –058] attempt to describe these equations (3) to (5) including remaining equations(1) –(2) and (6).
However, the specification also fails to describe how the variables b0 to b2 are related to each other using f (S, V) and their impact on the equation (2). Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite in light of applicant’s specification, and it is not clear how the equations (1) to (6) can be used to predict the etching amount distribution. Accordingly, the scope of the claim 1 is indefinite.
Note: For the examination purpose, equations (3) to (5) are interpreted as using different curves and their values for S, V to calculate intercept, slope, and attenuation as shown in fig. 10 and para. 052.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is also rejected for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1 due to equations (3) –(4)’s values being based on same function and function parameters.
Regarding claims 2- 7 & 9- 14, they are also rejected because of their dependency with rejected base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1- 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 1 & 8:
1) Nohara et al. (US 20210202258 A1) teaches a substrate processing system of processing a substrate, comprising: (Figs. 1- 2);
a substrate holder [“the spin chuck 3”] configured to hold the substrate; a rotating mechanism [“spin motor portion 5”] configured to rotate the substrate holder (Fig. 2, [077-080]);
an etching liquid supply [“first nozzle 41 supplies the etching solution”] configured to supply an etching liquid from above a surface of an etching target [“the rotating substrate W” W] on the substrate held by the substrate holder ([083]);
an etching apparatus equipped with a moving mechanism configured to move the etching liquid supply in a horizontal direction; and
a control device [“control device 101”] and a program storage including a program, wherein the program storage and the program are configured, with the control device, to perform ([072, 093, 0124]);
etching [“control device 101 controls operations of each component”] the surface of the etching target by supplying the etching liquid from the etching liquid supply to the surface of the etching target, while rotating the etching target and reciprocating the etching liquid supply in a diametrical direction through a position above a rotation center of the etching target ([071, 093, 0104]); and
predicting substrate speed information using the learned model ([0310]).
However, Nohara fails to teach predicting of etching amount distribution using of equations (1) to (6) as claimed.
2) Suzuki (US 20180254199 A1) teaches a substrate processing method of processing a substrate, comprising: etching a surface of an etching target on the substrate by supplying an etching liquid from an etching liquid supply to the surface, while rotating the etching target and reciprocating the etching liquid supply in a diametrical direction through a position above a rotation center of the etching target]); and a controller control device comprising circuitry configured to execute a scan process in which the circuitry controls the rotation device ([058-060] Claim 1).
3) NEGORO (US 20190221450 A1) teaches predicting an etching amount
distribution in the diametrical direction of the etching target when etching the surface of the etching target under prediction target etching conditions ([0153-0154]). However, its predicting an etching amount is not based on the equations (1) to (6).
4) Ota et al. (US 20240203765 A1) teaches determining distribution of etching amount by the etching process during training and determining various parameters of the equations (1) to (6) including: Scan speed (V) information and “a rotational speed (V) of the substrate W ([070, 0135, 0181]).
Accordingly, prior art does not teach or suggest the inclusion of “wherein the predicting of the etching amount distribution comprises: acquiring learning data including etching amount distribution when the surface of the etching target is etched under multiple different etching conditions; and predicting the etching amount distribution under the prediction target etching conditions from following equations (1) to (6) by using the learning data: ERscan(R) = ERret(R) X RatiOscan(R) • • • (1)
RatiOscan(R) = bo x exp(b1 x T + b2) + C • • • (2)
bo = f(S, V) • • • (3)
b1 = f(S, V) • • • (4)
b2 = f(S, V) • • • (5)
T = (L - R) / V · · · (6)”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Kodama (US 20200139503 A1) teaches tape thickness measuring unit 110 is capable of measuring a thickness distribution of the protective tape B in a diametrical direction ([075-076]).
2) Please refer to additional prior arts listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights