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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2026.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1 applicant states “a temperature gradient is defined by the spin check and the plurality of lower nozzles and causes the cleaning solution to flow in a cleaning solution layer on the front surface of the wafer”. However, based on the disclosure, it appears that the temperature gradient which causes the solution to flow is not a temperature gradient of the spin check and the fluid nozzles, but rather a temperature gradient of the lower surface to the wafer which is caused by the spin chuck and temperature control liquid applied to the lower surface by the lower nozzles (see Fig.5B in conjunction with [0074-0086 & 0091-0099]). Thus, it is unclear if applicant actually means that a temperature gradient of the nozzle and the spin chuck cause the movement of the solution. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as though the temperature gradient on the lower surface of the wafer causes said movement. Clarification and correction are required.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Lee (US20240207906A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1) and Harumoto (US20190196335A1).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abstract), capable of cleaning a wafer [0040], the apparatus comprising: an upper surface nozzle [0045] configured to spray a solution onto a front surface of the wafer; a spin chuck (ref 210 including ref 500) provided below the wafer and configured to rotate the wafer [0043] and heat a central region (see Fig.1) of the wafer [0044]; a plurality of lower nozzles (ref 300) provided below the wafer and configured to spray a fluid onto a rear surface of the wafer [0045]; the plurality of lower nozzles is capable of heating(see [0045] indicating the presence of a heater for the supply line and rear nozzles) an outer region of the wafer that surrounds the central region of the wafer. The limitations of the upper nozzle spraying a cleaning solution and the lower nozzles spraying a temperature control liquid are intended use of nozzles, and since the nozzles are capable of spraying solutions, from possible different lines [0045], then they read on the claim. Similarly, the limitation of a temperature gradient being defined by the spin check and the plurality of lower nozzles to cause the cleaning solution to flow in a cleaning solution layer on the front surface is also intended use of the spin chuck and the nozzles, and since both elements are capable of providing a temperature gradient they read on the claim. Further, such a limitation is also dependent upon the temperature control fluid ejected from the lower nozzle; however, such a fluid is not a positively recited limitation.
Assuming arguendo that the cited spin chuck of Lee does not heat a center portion which is intended to be required by the phrase central portion; and further assuming arguendo that Lee does not explicitly disclose the lower nozzles providing a heated fluid, the following alternative rejection is provided. Lee does not explicitly disclose the use of both heated fluid and the spin chuck heating the rear surface of the wafer surface and including a center of the wafer; however, such feature would have been obvious in view of Shirley and Harumoto.
Shirley discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that temperature can affect the fluid properties applied to the substrate top surface [0004 & 0006] and its uniformity [0032]. To account for this fact, Shirley provides multiple lower surface nozzles (ref 55a) to supply fluid to the rear surface of the substrate to adjust a substrate temperature to impose a desired temperature distribution to the substrate for application of the fluid provided on the front surface [0013, 0017, & 0032]. The fluid temperature is adjusted via heat exchangers [0016]. Shirley also indicates that thermoelectric heating elements can also be utilized for their uniform heat transfer, while heating liquid can be utilized for its quicker heat transfer [0031].
Harumoto discloses an art related substrate processing device (abstract), wherein it is indicated that a temperature of a central portion of the wafer can be regulated by the spin chuck, while the remaining underside can be regulated by the lower nozzles for more efficient regulation [0086]. Harumoto utilizes temperature regulators in order to adjust a fluid temperature as desired [0045 & 0048]. Accordingly, Harumoto suggests the use of both heated fluid and a heating unit associated with the spin chuck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to provide a spin chuck and center portion of the wafer with a heating element for efficient and uniform heating at the center of the substrate (Harumoto [0086]) while also allowing for heated fluid for the remaining back side portions of the wafer to regulate and impose a desired temperature distribution as needed (Shirley [0013, 0017, & 0032] & Harumoto [0086]).
As to claim 3, Lee or Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 3 are intended use, and since a nozzle is capable of spraying a liquid having different temperatures, it reads on the claim.
As to claim 4, Lee or Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein it is indicated that multiple nozzles can be provided (Lee [0062] or see Shirley refs 55a & Harumoto [0042]). Thus, Lee or Modified Lee envisages a plurality of lower nozzles such that at least one nozzle is closer to the center than another nozzle. Further, the limitation of the nozzle closer to the center supplying the control liquid with a higher temperature than a nozzle further from the center is intended use. Since Lee Modified Lee indicates the presence nozzles that are capable of provided heated fluid and at least one nozzle is closer to a center than another, it reads on the claim.
As to claim 7, Lee or Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 7 are intended use and drawn towards the cleaning solution, which is not a positively recited element. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claim so long as the structure is capable of performing such a feature. In this case, since the device of Lee or Modified Lee contains structures for adjusting a temperature of a substrate and consequently providing a temperature gradient of a fluid on a top surface of the substrate, it reads on the claim. The flow of the solution by thermophoresis and Marangoni convection is merely a result of the temperature gradient.
As to claim 8, Lee or Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 8 are intended use and drawn towards the cleaning solution, which is not a positively recited element. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claim so long as the structure is capable of performing such a feature. In this case, since the device of Lee or Modified Lee contains structures for adjust a temperature of a substrate, including in the central region, and consequently providing a temperature gradient of a fluid on a top surface of the substrate, it reads on the claim. The flow of the solution by thermophoresis and Marangoni convection is merely a result of the temperature gradient.
As to claim 10, Lee or Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lower nozzles surround the spin chuck and are symmetrical to each other about the spin chuck (see Lee Fig.1 or Shirley Fig.1 & Harumoto Fig.9).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1) and Harumoto (US20190196335A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inatomi (US20060237127A1) and Morikawa (US20200312678A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the heating element can be a thermoelectric heating element (Shirley [0029]). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect that a thermoelectric heating element would be present with a power receiver in order to actuate the heating element and to render the heater operable. A skilled artisan would also reasonably expect that there exists some heat transferring structure to transfer heat from the heating element to the wafer. However, assuming arguendo that such features are now reasonably expected to be present, they are known in the art, as seen by Inatomi and Morikawa.
Inatomi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that a Peltier element (i.e., a thermoelectric heating device) is provided with a power supply and a temperature controller (refs 63 & 64) and associated electrical circuitry (i.e., dashed lines in Fig.4) to connect the power supply to the Peltier element. The temperature controller varies the power received by Peltier element in order to adjust the temperature [0075]. A skilled artisan understands that the electrical circuitry which receives power from the power supply and sends said power to the Peltier element reads on a power receiver.
Morikawa discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that a material connecting a heating element (ref 141) to a check element (ref 120) should be thermally conductive ([0096-0097], i.e., reading on a heat transfer member) in order to efficiently transfer heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lee to provide the thermoelectric element as a Peltier element with associated power supply, temperature controller, and connecting circuitry in order to adjust the temperature (Inatomi [0075]). It is in the purview one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known thermoelectric heating configuration in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to provide a component or surface connecting the heating element to the chuck as a thermally conductive element in order to efficiently transfer heat (Morikawa [0096-0097]).
Claim(s) 3-4 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1) and Harumoto (US20190196335A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 3 are intended use, and since a nozzle is capable of spraying a liquid having different temperatures, it reads on the claim. Further, Shirley also discloses the presence of heat exchangers [0016] to allow for different temperatures for each nozzle to obtain a desired temperature distribution of the substrate. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such heat exchangers for the lower nozzles in order to obtain a desired temperature distribution.
As to claim 4, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein it is indicated that multiple nozzles can be provided (Lee [0062], See Shirley refs 55a, & Harumoto [0042]). Thus, Modified Lee envisages a plurality of lower nozzles such that at least one nozzle is closer to the center than another nozzle. Further, the limitation of the nozzle closer to the center supplying the control liquid with a higher temperature than a nozzle further from the center is intended use. Since Modified Lee discloses the presence nozzles that are capable of provided heated fluid and at least one nozzle is closer to a center than another, it reads on the claim. Furthermore, Shirley also discloses the presence of heat exchangers [0016] to allow for different temperatures for each nozzle to obtain a desired temperature distribution of the substrate. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such heat exchangers for the lower nozzles in order to obtain a desired temperature distribution. Accordingly, such a modification would provide at least one nozzle closer to a center than another with the ability to provide a fluid with a different temperature than a nozzle disposed farther from the center.
As to claim 9, Modified Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the limitations of the spin chuck heating the central region of the wafer to a higher temperature than a temperature of the control liquid is intended use. Accordingly, the prior art reads on the claim so long as the structure is capable of performing such a feature. Further, Shirley discloses the presence of heat exchangers [0016] to allow for different temperatures for each nozzle to obtain a desired temperature distribution of the substrate. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement such heat exchangers for the lower nozzles in order to obtain a desired temperature distribution. Accordingly, such a modification would provide the ability for the temperature of the nozzle to be less than a temperature of the spin chuck. Accordingly, since the device of Modified Lee contains structures for adjust a temperature of a nozzle fluid temperature and thus provide a temperature less than that provided by the spin chuck, it reads on the claim. It is also noted that such a limitation is codependent upon a control liquid temperature, which is not a positively cited limitation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20240207906A1) in view of Shirley (US20020002944A1) and Harumoto (US20190196335A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umotoy (US20070040265A1) and Jin (CN108120855B).
As to claim 5, Modified Lee teaches the device of claim 1, wherein although Lee does not specify type of chuck, a known type of chuck for holding of a substrate is a vacuum chuck (Shirley [0021]). Modified Lee does not disclose the structure of the chuck having an upper plate and a lower plate, each with vacuum holes; however, such a vacuum chuck structure is well-known in the art, as seen by Umotoy and Jin.
Umotoy discloses an art related substrate handling device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a vacuum chuck (see Fig.2) is formed of upper and lower plates having disk/cylindrical shapes (see refs 110a/110b/110c) having vacuum holes (refs 174/150/129/130/132) and a heater can be provided within the vacuum chuck plates [0020].
Jin discloses an art related substrate handling device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a vacuum chuck comprises an upper plate having a disc shape (ref 310) with vacuum holes (ref 316) and a lower plate (ref 320) having a cylindrical shape with vacuum holes (ref 321) provided above a heater (ref 332).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing, to modify Lee to utilize the vacuum chuck construction of Umotoy or Jin in order to support the substrate (Umotoy [0002] & Jin [0002 & 0006], as desired by Lee. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known vacuum chuck construction when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is that recited in the rejection above. Further the claim distinguishes an upper surface and lower surface from an outer wall. Thus, an outer wall is understood to not refer to a top or bottom surface of the thermoelectric element. Accordingly, the outer wall must be different from a top or bottom of the thermoelectric heating element. The following rationale further indicates why claim 6 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Umotoy, as utilized in the rejection above, indicates that the heater is present within the vacuum chuck [0020] and thus at least some inner wall exposed to the vacuum hole.
Inatomi, as utilized in the rejection of claim 2 above, also discloses the use of a thermoelectric heating element (Fig.4 refs 62-64) for a suction chuck [0074].
Morikawa, as utilized in the rejection of claim 2 above, discloses a chuck and heating element structure (refs 120 & 140) provides vacuum holes (refs 144) which expose at least some part of the heating element to the vacuum (see Fig.6 ref 152W extends through ref 142), and an insulating member [0100] is provided below the heater. However, Morikawa does not suggest the placement of an insulator above the heater, rather Morikawa indicates that a material connecting a heating element (ref 141) to a check element (ref 120) should be thermally conductive ([0096-0097], i.e., reading on a heat transfer member) in order to efficiently transfer heat.
Anderson (USH1145H) discloses the presence of top and bottom insulating member ref (13 & 14) above and below heater (ref 15) of chuck to provide insulation between the chuck and heater (Col.5 lines 55-60) so as to bring the temperature of the wafer to operating temperature quickly (abstract).
Kadotani (US6347521B1) discloses a thermoelectric heater having an insulating sheet (ref 17) above copper electrode (ref 5, e.g., a heat transferring member), however the heat transfer member is not provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Kobayashi (US20220005727A1) discloses a thermoelectric heater (abstract) having an insulating member (refs 21/22) provided above and below the thermoelectric heating element (ref 6). However, no heat transfer member is provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Ricci (US20140356985A1) discloses a thermoelectric heater (abstract) having an insulating member (refs 153a/153b) provided above and below the thermoelectric heating element (ref 140). However, no heat transfer member is provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Son (US20090071524A1) discloses a thermoelectric heater (abstract) having an insulating member (refs 216/218) provided above and below the thermoelectric heating element (see Fig.8). However, no heat transfer member is provided on an outer wall of the thermoelectric element.
Accordingly, even though individual components of the claim are known within the art, a skilled artisan would not find it obvious to combine the elements in the manner recited by claim 6 based on the art of record. Thus, claim 6 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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, 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711