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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, claims 1-2, 11 and 14-15, in the reply filed on 21 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: 1) all of the claims are properly presented in the same application; 2) undue diverse searching should not be required; and 3) all claims should be examined together. These grounds are not found persuasive because neither ground “1” nor “3” represent valid or proper reasoning for a requirement properly set forth, wherein no evidence has been provided regarding the propriety of the requirement. With respect to the ground where it is argued that no diverse searching would be required, this is not found persuasive because the various mutually exclusive features would require an undue search burden based on, at least, the diverging search classifications and search terms required.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 21-27 were previously withdrawn. Claims 3-10, 13 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 1 and 2: single wafer processing section/unit which has been interpreted as a spin chuck and one or more nozzles, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at paras. 27-30; claim 1 and 2: conveyance system/unit which has been interpreted as robot, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 27; claim 11 low-dissolved oxygen concentration deionized water supply device which has been interpreted as a supply line as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 83.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 and 2: Batch processing section has not been interpreted under the statute because the claim includes relevant structure for performing the function (i.e. a plurality of batch processing units/processing tanks).
Claim 1 and 2: Standby section has not been interpreted under the statute because the claim includes relevant structure for performing the function (i.e. immersion tank).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 controller has been interpreted based on the specification (e.g., para. 9) as a computer with processor and programmable storage, or similar.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0137726 to Sano et al. 2008/0223411 to Mokuo.
Regarding claim 1: Sano et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a batch processing section including a batch processing unit (see, e.g., Fig. 9, 31) provided with a processing tank (31a) that stores a processing liquid, and configured to immerse a plurality of substrates in the processing liquid stored within the processing tank and capable of performing a liquid processing on the plurality of substrates; a single wafer processing section including a single wafer processing section (e.g., 43 including spin chuck 53a and one or more nozzles 53c) is capable of processing the plurality of substrates previously or subsequently processed in the batch processing section, one by one; a standby section (e.g., 33) including an immersion tank (33a) that stores an immersion liquid, and is capable of standing by the plurality of substrates processed by the batch processing section, while being immersed in the immersion liquid; a conveyance system (e.g. 9) capable of conveying the plurality of substrates from the standby section to the single-wafer processing section.
The embodiment of Sano Fig. 9, et al. fail to explicitly to disclose a plurality of batch processing units/tanks, this is considered a mere duplication of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic. See also Fig. 9 of Sano et al. Additionally, the courts have ruled thee 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).
Sano et al. disclose the conveyance unit as set forth above.
However, Sano et al. fail to disclose a substrate conveyance unit (i.e. robot) capable of taking out the plurality of substrates immersed in the immersed in the immersion liquid within the immersion tank one by one from the immersion liquid.
Mokuo discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a substrate conveyance unit (i.e. robot) (Figs. 1-2, 30) capable of taking out a plurality of substrates immersed in the immersed in an immersion liquid within an immersion tank (Fig. 4, 51), one by one from the immersion liquid for the purpose of securely preventing the transfer of particles between wafers while also improving processing ability per unit time in the immersion tank (see, e.g. paras. 157-159).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Sano et al. a substrate conveyance unit (i.e. robot) capable of taking out the plurality of substrates immersed in the immersion liquid within the immersion tank one by one from the immersion liquid in order to securely prevent the transfer of particles between wafers while also improving processing ability per unit time in the immersion tank as taught by Mokuo.
Regarding claim limitation, the standby section configured to perform at least one of a first liquid processing and a second liquid processing on the plurality of substrates, the first liquid processing hydrophilizes surfaces of the substrate, or improves or maintains hydrophilicity of the surfaces of the substrates, and the second liquid processing makes a zeta potential of the surfaces of the substrates negative, which is interpreted as intended use of the claimed apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969.
Regarding claim 2: Sano et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus substantially as claimed and comprising: a batch processing section including a batch processing unit (see, e.g., Fig. 9, 31) provided with a processing tank (31a) that stores a processing liquid, and configured to immerse a plurality of substrates in the processing liquid stored within the processing tank and capable of collectively performing a liquid processing on the plurality of substrates; a single wafer processing section including a single wafer processing section/unit (e.g., 43 including spin chuck 53a and one or more nozzles 53c) is capable of processing the plurality of substrates previously or subsequently processed in the batch processing section, one by one; a standby section (e.g., 33) including an immersion tank (33a) that stores an immersion liquid, and is capable of standing by the plurality of substrates processed by the batch processing section, while being immersed in the immersion liquid; a conveyance system (e.g. 9) capable of conveying the plurality of substrates from the standby section to the single-wafer processing section.
The embodiment of Sano Fig. 9, et al. fail to explicitly to disclose a plurality of batch processing units/tanks, this is considered a mere duplication of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic. See also Fig. 9 of Sano et al. Additionally, the courts have ruled that the 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).
Sano et al. disclose the conveyance unit as set forth above.
However, Sano et al. fail to disclose a first substrate conveyance unit (i.e. robot) capable of taking out the plurality of substrates immersed in the immersed in the immersion liquid within the immersion tank one by one from the immersion liquid.
Mokuo discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a substrate conveyance unit (i.e. robot) (Figs. 1-2, 30) capable of taking out a plurality of substrates immersed in the immersed in an immersion liquid within an immersion tank (Fig. 4, 51), one by one from the immersion liquid for the purpose of securely preventing the transfer of particles between wafers while also improving processing ability per unit time in the immersion tank (see, e.g. paras. 157-159).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Sano et al. a first substrate conveyance unit (i.e. robot) capable of taking out the plurality of substrates immersed in the immersion liquid within the immersion tank one by one from the immersion liquid in order to securely prevent the transfer of particles between wafers while also improving processing ability per unit time in the immersion tank as taught by Mokuo.
Regarding claim limitation, the standby section configured to perform at least one of a first immersion processing and a second immersion processing on the substrates, the first immersion processing immerses the substrates in water as the immersion liquid stored in the immersion tank, the wager being controlled to have a dissolved oxygen concentration of a predetermined values or less, and the second immersion processing immerses the substrate in hydrogen water or CO2 water as the immersion liquid stored in the immersion tank, which has been interpreted as an intended use of the claimed apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 11, claim limitation the standby section is configured to perform the first immersion processing, and the first immersion processing is performed by immersing the plurality of substrates in deionized water that is stored in the immersion tank and has a dissolved oxygen concentration of 100ppb or less, which has been interpreted as an intended use of the claimed apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
With respect to claim 14, in modified Sano et al., Sano et al. discloses the standby section includes a supply device (31b supply pipe/line) capable of supplying deionized water. With respect to claim limitations drawn to an intended use of the supply device, as discussed above, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sano et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 11 and 14 in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,826,601 to Muraoka et al.
Modified Sano et al. discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, Sano et al. fails to disclose a dissolved oxygen concentration sensor to measure the dissolved oxygen concentration in the deionized water stored within the immersion tank; and a controller to control supplying of low-concentration deionized water into the immersion tank such that the dissolved oxygen concentration of the deionized water stored within the immersion tank is maintained at 100 ppb or less.
Muraoka et al. disclose a dissolved oxygen concentration sensor (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 7-8; 8 and/or 20) configured to measure the dissolved oxygen concentration in the deionized water stored in a immersion tank; and a controller (26) configured to control supplying of the low-dissolved oxygen concentration deionized water into the immersion tank such that the dissolved oxygen concentration of the deionized water stored within the immersion tank is maintained at 100 ppb or less for the purpose of, inter alia, allowing for effective treatment (see, e.g., column 3, row through column 5, row 41 and column 10, rows 22-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Sano et al. a dissolved oxygen concentration sensor to measure the dissolved oxygen concentration in the deionized water stored within the immersion tank; and a controller to control supplying of low-concentration deionized water into the immersion tank such that the dissolved oxygen concentration of the deionized water stored within the immersion tank is maintained at 100 ppb or less in order to allow for effective treatment as taught by Muraoka et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP H09162157 discloses a conveying unit for conveying substrates from a batch processing tank. U.S. Patent No. 5,919,336 to Kikuchi et al discloses using deionized water for cleaning a substrate with an oxygen concentration with a particular upper limit in order to decrease danger of oxidation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights