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 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, and 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (US2009/0107522A1) in view of Okamura et al. (US2016/0027635A1).
It appears applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 2, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Re claim 1, Uchida et al. teach a second pre-wet operation of supplying a second pre-wet liquid (IPA liquid, Fig. 5a, paragraphs 57-58) to a rotating substrate, and a chemical treatment operation of supplying a chemical, wherein the chemical treatment step can be interpreted as a) (Fig. 5c; paragraphs 26 and 60) or b) DI water rinse (paragraph 67) that is different from the second pre-wet operation, wherein the chemical treatment is performed after the second pre-wet operation. In summary, the chemical treatment can broadly be interpreted as a) treatment with an aqueous chemical agent or b) DI water rinse, both of which occur after treatment of liquid IPA.
Re claim 1, Uchida et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of supplying a first pre-wet liquid. In paragraphs 70-73, Okamura et al. teach a pre-treatment step of supplying an IPA vapor, water vapor, ammonium water vapor (abstract), as a pre-treatment prior to a cleaning step. Specifically, Okamura et al. teach using IPA vapor as a pre-treatment in order to form a thin liquid film by the vapor, so that the wettability of the surface is enhanced to allow for enhanced cleaning of the substrate surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Uchida et al. to include an additional pre-treatment step, comprising an IPA vapor, as taught by Okamura et al. for purposes of increasing the wettability of the surface to allow for enhanced cleaning of the substrate surface. In reference to the second-pre wet liquid having a temperature different from the first-pre-wet operation, the limitations are met as a result of treating with IPA vapor as a pre-treatment prior to the liquid IPA treatment of Uchida et al. Re claim 1, in reference to the temperature of the first pre-wet liquid higher than the temperature of the second pre-wet liquid, the limitations are met in view of the combined teachings of Uchida et al. in view of Okamura et al. Specifically, Okamura et al. teach the use of IPA in a vapor phase (first pre-wet liquid) prior to treating with the second pre-wet liquid (IPA in liquid phase), of Uchida et al. IPA liquid in a vapor phase inherently has a higher temperature than IPA liquid, as the boiling point of IPA to form a vapor phase is 80C. Re claims 3-4, the limitations are met as a result of treating with IPA vapor, followed by liquid IPA. Re claim 5, Uchida et al. in view of Okamura et al. fail to teach the claimed temperature range. However, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the temperature within the claimed range since the boiling point of IPA to form a vapor phase is 80C. Re claims 6-7, Uchida et al. teach liquid IPA, since there are no teachings of increasing the temperature, the limitations of claim 7 read on room temperature, and therefore the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the limitations to be met by Uchida et al. Re claims 8 and 11-13, Uchida et al. in view of Okamura et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the temperature limitations. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the processing parameters, such as temperature, depending upon such factors as the concentration and flow rate of the pre-wet liquid, the amount and type of contaminants being removed, and the size of the substrate surface, in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness. In reference to claim 9, the limitations are broadly interpreted as an additional treatment step, wherein the additional treatment step comprises water. The limitations are met by the teachings of Uchida et al. The limitations can broadly be interpreted wherein the second pre-treatment step is the liquid IPA, the third pre-wet operation is the chemical treatment step, and the chemical treatment step is DI water. Re claim 10, the limitations are met if the claim is broadly interpreted as the third pre-wet operation being the chemical treatment step, wherein the chemical treatment step comprises treating with an aqueous solution of the chemical agent (paragraph 25). The chemical solutions listed are diluted with deionized water and therefore reads broadly on applicant’s claim of the third pre-wet liquid being deionized water, as the limitations are open ended to include other ingredients. Re claim 13, the limitations of temperature, as previously addressed above. Furthermore, Uchida et al. teach applying various liquids to both the top and bottom of the substrate surface (Fig. 1 for example).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (US2009/0107522A1) in view of Okamura et al. (US2016/0027635A1) and further in view of Wada et al. (US2023/0265362A1).
Uchida et al. in view of Okamura et al. teach forming a liquid film by rinsing with DI water, followed by IPA vapor drying (paragraphs 70-72). Uchida et al. in view of Okamura et al. fail to teach supercritical drying. Wada et al. teach treating a substrate comprising a chemical treatment step, a water rinsing step, a rinsing step and a drying step (Figs. 1-2). Fig. 4, paragraphs 173-174 teaches supercritical drying of 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 have modified the modified method of Uchida et al., to include using supercritical fluids, as taught by Wada et al., as an equivalence and conventional means of drying the substrate surface. Re claim 16, the limitations include a combination of claims 1, 4, 6, and 15, the limitations of which have been previously addressed by the combined teachings of Uchida et al., Okamura et al., and Wada et al. In reference to a patterned wafer, refer to paragraph 3 of Okamura et al. for example. Re claim 17, refer to paragraph 25 of Uchida et al.
Response to Arguments
7. The claim objections are withdrawn in view of corrections made by applicant.
8. The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of corrections made by applicant.
9. The rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Abe et al. is withdrawn in view of the newly amended limitations.
10. The rejections of the claims as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. in view of Okamura et al. and/or the secondary references are maintained for the reasons set forth above. Applicant specifically argues that Uchida and Okamura fail to teach different temperatures for the first pre-wet liquid and the second pre-wet liquid, and further does not teach the first temperature of the first pre-wet liquid being higher than the second temperature of the second pre-wet liquid. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, as Uchida teaches a second pre-wet liquid (IPA liquid) and Okamura specifically teaches a first pre-wet liquid (IPA vapor), wherein the first pre-wet liquid serves to improve wettability. Applicant’s claim 1, requires a first pre-wet liquid having a first temperature which is higher than the temperature of the second pre-wet liquid. Claim 1 does not require a specific temperature and by definition a liquid will have a given temperature. The combined teachings of the references teaches IPA (vapor phase) followed by the IPA liquid, and since IPA is in a vapor phase, the IPA vapor (first prewet liquid) will have a higher temperature than IPA liquid. No additional arguments have been presented.
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc