DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 11-15 and 17-21 are pending
Claims 1-10 and 16 have been canceled
Claims 11 and 17 have been amended
Claim 21 is new
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 are 11-15 and17-20 are 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.
Claim 11 has been amended to recite “the IPA evaporation system is further configured to feed a portion of the filtered liquid IPA”, however, claim 11 never recites where the IPA feeds to. Therefore, the particular configuration required of the evaporation system is unclear.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorimer US 6,460,552 (US’552) in view of Ueno et al. JP H09246230 (JP’230) (machine translation provided used for citation).
Regarding claim 11, US’552 teaches a wafer processing system (cleaning apparatus 81, see fig. 4, col. 9), comprising: an isopropyl alcohol (IPA) evaporation system configured to evaporate liquid IPA into IPA vapor (vapor phase generator, col. 4-5); and a process chamber configured to inject the IPA vapor into the process chamber (cleaning apparatus 81 includes lid 94 is provided with a steam inlet 84 allows a vapor phase to be applied to an upper or "active" surface 130, i.e. the surface that has integrated circuit devices being formed thereon, col. 9-10, fig. 3-4), condense the IPA vapor into distilled high purity liquid IPA (Some of the vapor phase becomes liquefied upon contacting the wafer, and is urged outwardly toward the edge of the wafer by the rapid rotation of the wafer. Preferably, a liquid phase of an aqueous solution is applied to the other surface of the wafer to clean the backside of the wafer and to cool the wafer to aid in the condensation process, col. 5), and rinse a top surface of a semiconductor wafer in the process chamber using the distilled high purity liquid IPA (the IPA vapor is condensed onto the upper active surface of the substrate to clean the substrate, as discussed above).
US’552 does not teach an IPA filter configured to filter liquid IPA into filtered liquid IPA, coupled to the IPA filter, the IPA evaporation system configured to evaporate the filtered liquid IPA wherein the IPA evaporation system is further configured to feed a portion of the filtered liquid IPA that is left in the IPA evaporation system after the filtered liquid IPA is evaporated into the IPA vapor, and the IPA filter is further configured to filter the portion of the filtered liquid IPA.
JP’230 teaches circuit 130 for circulating the IPA liquid in a steam generator the circuit 130 include a pump 131 and filter 132 in line The IPA liquid in the steam generation chamber main body 101 is circulated in the circuit 130 by the operation of 31, and is filtered by the filter 132 in the middle thereof to remove impurities contained in the IPA liquid in the steam generator. In the vapor generation chamber main body 101 where the IPA liquid is being evaporated, the impurities contained in the IPA liquid tend to gradually concentrate and accumulate. Therefore, at an appropriate time, the pump 131 circulates liquid IPA from the steam generator through a filter and back to the steam generator (page 13 and 16, see fig. 7).
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 system of US’552 to include an IPA filter configured to filter liquid IPA into filtered liquid IPA, coupled to the IPA filter, the IPA evaporation system configured to evaporate the filtered liquid IPA wherein the IPA evaporation system is further configured to feed a portion of the filtered liquid IPA that is left in the IPA evaporation system after the filtered liquid IPA is evaporated into the IPA vapor, and the IPA filter is further configured to filter the portion of the filtered liquid IPA because JP’230 teaches that it reduces impurities that accumulate within IPA evaporators and applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (D).
Regarding claim 12, the modified system of US’552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11. US’552 further teaches wherein the process chamber is configured to cool a back surface of the semiconductor wafer (a liquid phase of an aqueous solution is applied to the other surface of the wafer to clean the backside of the wafer and to cool the wafer to aid in the condensation process, col. 5).
Regarding claim 13, the modified system of US’552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11. US’552 further teaches wherein the process chamber is configured to rinse the top surface of the semiconductor wafer using deionized water while injecting the IPA vapor into the process chamber (it is noted that the applicant claimed configuration of “the process chamber" recites the intended use of the chamber. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The chamber of US’552 includes a liquid supply preferably comprises deionized water, and/or isopropyl alcohol solution, or other suitable aqueous and nonaqueous cleaning agents where in the liquid is condensed on the substrate a used to clean the substrate, which would allow the chamber to supply IPA and deionized water vapor onto the wafer to clean/rinse the wafer with liquid DIW and IPA. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have known that the structural limitations of the chamber taught by the prior art and the chamber claimed would have been the same and since the claim is directed towards an apparatus, the apparatus is independent of the intended use).
Regarding claim 14, the modified system of US’552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11. US’552 further teaches wherein the process chamber is configured to displace the distilled high purity liquid IPA using a nitrogen gas to dry the semiconductor wafer (The heated N2 purge gas 174, coupled with nitrogen from tank 166 fed through heated components valve 156, line 162, and filter 158, is used to dry the wafer after cleaning, col. 11-12, see fig. 7. It is noted that the applicant claimed configuration of “the process chamber" recites the intended use of the chamber. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Regarding claim 15, the modified system of US’552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11. US’552 further teaches a gas filter configured to filter the IPA vapor before the IPA vapor is injected into the process chamber (a filter coupled to the steam generator to filter the vapor phase, col. 5, see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, the modified system of US’552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11. JP’230 further teaches an IPA pump configured to pump the filtered liquid IPA into the IPA evaporation system (pump 131, page 13 and 16).
Regarding claim 18, the modified system of US’552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11. US’552 further teaches wherein the process chamber is configured to heat walls of the process chamber while injecting the IPA vapor into the process chamber (heat traces 134 (e.g. electrical resistance tape or blankets) are used to maintain an elevated temperature on the sidewalls structure 92a and the lid 94b to prevent condensation, particularly on components 94a,c and 92b, col 10 see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, the modified system of US’552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11. US’552 further teaches wherein the process chamber is configured to generate a gas curtain flow for walls of the process chamber while injecting the IPA vapor into the process chamber (N2 purging is also provided in the lid assembly 94, through an annular shaped passageway 127, preferably exiting at or near the outer diameter of wafer 30. This purge aids in the reduction or elimination of recirculation eddies (caused by rotation) which can contaminate the edge of the water, col. 10, see fig. 4).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’552 in view of JP’230 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Taniyama et al. US 6,247,479 (US’479).
Regarding claim 20, US 552 teaches the wafer processing system of claim 11.
US’552 does not teach wherein the process chamber is configured to inject a heated gas supply into the process chamber to heat the process chamber while injecting the IPA vapor into the process chamber.
US’479 teaches combining IPA vapor and heater nitrogen gas. If the primary drying step using IPA vapor and the secondary drying step using dry N2 gas (final drying) are combined, the surface of the wafer W can be completely dried (col. 9 and 11-12, see fig. 2 and 13). Therefore, US’479 teaches to configure the chamber of US’552 to dispense the heated nitrogen with the IPA vapor to more efficiently dry the substrate.
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 system of US’552 to include wherein the process chamber is configured to inject a heated gas supply into the process chamber to heat the process chamber while injecting the IPA vapor into the process chamber because US’479 teaches to configure the chamber of US’552 to dispense the heated nitrogen with the IPA vapor to more efficiently dry the substrate and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorimer US 6,460,552 (US’552) in view of in view of Taniyama et al. US 6,247,479 (US’479).
Regarding claim 21, US’552 teaches a wafer processing system (cleaning apparatus 81, see fig. 4, col. 9), comprising: an isopropyl alcohol (IPA) evaporation system configured to evaporate liquid IPA into IPA vapor (vapor phase generator, col. 4-5); and a process chamber configured to inject the IPA vapor into the process chamber (cleaning apparatus 81 includes lid 94 is provided with a steam inlet 84 allows a vapor phase to be applied to an upper or "active" surface 130, i.e. the surface that has integrated circuit devices being formed thereon, col. 9-10, fig. 3-4), condense the IPA vapor into distilled high purity liquid IPA (Some of the vapor phase becomes liquefied upon contacting the wafer, and is urged outwardly toward the edge of the wafer by the rapid rotation of the wafer. Preferably, a liquid phase of an aqueous solution is applied to the other surface of the wafer to clean the backside of the wafer and to cool the wafer to aid in the condensation process, col. 5),
US’552 does not teach wherein the process chamber is configured to inject a heated laminar gas curtain flow from a center of the process chamber to an edge of the process chamber while injecting the IPA vapor into the process chamber.
US’479 teaches combining IPA vapor and heater nitrogen gas. If the primary drying step using IPA vapor and the secondary drying step using dry N2 gas (final drying) are combined, the surface of the wafer W can be completely dried (col. 9 and 11-12, see fig. 2 and 13). Therefore, US’479 teaches to configure the chamber of US’552 to dispense the heated nitrogen with the IPA vapor to more efficiently dry the substrate, which would include a configuration capable of dispensing the combination from inlet 138 (col 10, see fig. 4) such that a heated gas curtain can flow from the center and proceeds to the edge of the wafer including the walls of the chamber.
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 system of US’552 to include wherein the process chamber is configured to inject a heated laminar gas curtain flow from a center of the process chamber to an edge of the process chamber while injecting the IPA vapor into the process chamber because US’479 teaches to configure the chamber of US’552 to dispense the heated nitrogen with the IPA vapor to more efficiently dry the substrate and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 11 to incorporate limitations of claim 16 into claim 11 and add further features regarding a configuration to feed a portion of the filtered IPA and filtering the portion has changed the scope of claim 11, and as a result, the 102 rejection of claim 11 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 11-4-25 is withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 as obvious over US’552 in view of JP’230 which includes both the rejection of claim 11 as stated in the non-final office action and additional discussion regarding the teachings of JP’230 relating to the features added to claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-4-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants arguments with regard to the teachings of Taniyama and the amendments made to claim 11 have been considered but are moot due to the reference not being relied on for teaching the newly added limitations.
No arguments have been filed with regard to the teachings of Lorimer and Taniyama and the limitations of claim 21, which is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights