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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 9-10, 13-16 is/are cancelled; claim(s) 19-20 was/were withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 is/are amended; claims 7-8, 11-12, 17-18 are indicated as allowable.
Applicant’s arguments regarding amendments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments based on the amendments do not apply to the current rejection. The amendments in the claims are rejected by Hinode in addition to previously relied on references below.
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 1-6 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.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "the controller is further configured to supply the mixture liquid”… “and in parallel, discharge the mixture liquid containing the silicon-containing compound aqueous solution from the processing bath" in the claim. It is unclear how the controller can “carry out” these functions, when the controller is supposed to instead “control” the structures to carry out the functions (as the controller does not have the capabilities listed). Examiner interprets broadly. Appropriate clarification is requested in each instance (also claims 4, 6).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190096711 to Ohno in view of US 20160035597 to Hinode.
Claim 1: Ohno discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing bath (46/45 [outer tub]/[inner tub], Fig. 6) in which a substate (8 [substrates]) is immersed to be processed (para. [0091]); a mixer (47/80) configured to generate a mixture liquid by mixing a phosphoric acid aqueous solution (40a [phosphoric acid aqueous solution supply unit]) with an additive (43 [SiO2 precipitation inhibitor supply unit]) that suppresses precipitation of silicon oxide (para. [0116-0122]); a liquid sending path (50 [first circulation line]) configured to send the mixture liquid from the mixer to the processing bath (45, para. [0093-0094]);
A heater (52 [first heater], Fig. 6, in the mixer (47/80); a Silicon solution supply (44 [silicon supply unit], Fig. 6) configured to supply a silicon-containing compound aqueous to the mixture liquid supplied from the mixer (47/80, Fig. 6, para. [0096]); and a controller (100 [control unit], Fig. 1) configured to control the processing bath (46/45), the mixer (47/80), the liquid sending path (50), and the silicon solution supply (44), wherein, when the substrate (8) is immersed in the processing bath (46/45, para. [0103]).
However Ohno does not explicitly disclose the controller is further considered capable to be configured to supply the mixture liquid without the silicon-containing compound aqueous solution to the processing bath. Yet the controller (100, Fig. 1) of Ohno controls opening and closing of valves, and has a computer readable recording medium for storing programs for the purpose of controlling various types of processings performed in the substrate processing apparatus (1, para. [0067]), and the method steps in Ohno explicitly teach the limitation “supply the mixture liquid without the silicon-containing compound aqueous solution to the processing bath” (para. [0114]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Ohno with motivation to control various types of processings performed in the substrate processing apparatus.
Ohno does not disclose in the embodiment that the silicon solution supply is configured to be connected to the processing bath separately from the liquid sending path.
Yet Ohno teaches in another modification example that the silicon solution supply (44/44b) is configured to be connected to the processing bath (46/45) separately from the liquid sending path (50), for the purpose of having direct connection to the processing bath (para. [0160]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification as taught by Ohno with motivation to have direct connection to the processing bath.
However the apparatus of Ohno does not disclose and in parallel, discharge the mixture liquid containing the silicon-containing compound aqueous solution from the processing bath, wherein the controller is configured to control the heater so as to set a temperature of the mixture liquid based on whether to supply the silicon-containing compound aqueous solution to the mixture liquid.
Hinode discloses a controller (9 [controller], Fig. 1) configured to control the opening and closing of valves of the supply devices (91 [VIW supply system], 92 [nitrogen gas supply system], 93 [phosphoric acid aqueous solution supply system]) based on determinations of either concentration or height of liquid surfaces (para. [0114-0117]), and controls mixing of the two liquids in the mixer (80 [production tank], para. [0108]), which reads on discharging the liquid from the mixer (para. [0108]). Hinode also teaches the controller (9) setting the heater (84 [heater], Fig. 2) via a determination mechanism (89) of the solutions on whether to supply (para. [0123-0140]), for the purpose of accurately and uniformly adjusting the solution to the target concentration (para. [0138]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the controlling of solutions via determinations as taught by Hinode with motivation to accurately and uniformly adjust the solution to the target concentration.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Hinode as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2009206419 A to Hiromi.
Claim 2: The apparatus of Ohno in view of Hinode does not further comprising: a flow meter provided in the liquid sending path, and a return path that diverges from a downstream side of the flow meter in the liquid sending path, and returns to a tank provided in the mixer.
Hiromi disclose further comprising: a flow meter (“flow rate control means,” para. [0009]) provided in the liquid sending path (20, Fig. 1), and a return path (30) that diverges from a downstream side of the flow meter (“flow rate control means”) in the liquid sending path (20), and returns to a tank (41 [weighing tank]) provided in the mixer (41, para. [0027]) for the purpose of stopping the flow of the solution from the line during the immersion treatment of the substrate (para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Hiromi with motivation to stop the flow of the solution from the line during the immersion treatment of the substrate.
Claim(s) 3-4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Hinode, Himori as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JP2018139259A to Shigenori.
Claim 3: The apparatus of Ohno in view of Hinode, Himori does not disclose wherein a plurality of mixers is provided for the processing bath, and the controller is further configured to control the plurality of mixers to exclusively supply the mixture liquid to the processing bath.
However Shigenori discloses a plurality of mixers is provided for the processing bath, and the plurality of mixers exclusively supply the mixture liquid to the processing bath (para. [0016], [0023]) for the purpose of reducing the temperature difference between pipes (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Shigenori with motivation to reduce the temperature difference between pipes.
Claim 4: The apparatus of Ohno in view of Hinode, Himori does not disclose wherein a plurality of mixers is provided for a plurality of processing baths, and the controller is further configured to sequentially supply the mixture liquid to the plurality of processing baths that require supply of the mixture liquid from the mixer in which generation of the mixture liquid is completed.
Shigenori discloses wherein a plurality of mixers is provided for a plurality of processing baths, and the mixture liquid is sequentially supplied to the plurality of the processing baths that require supply of the mixture liquid from the mixer in which generation of the mixture liquid is completed (Fig. 4, 8, para. [0028-0051]) for the purpose of reducing the temperature difference of the processing liquid in the circulation pipes in a short period of time (para. [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Shigenori with motivation to reduce the temperature difference of the processing liquid in the circulation pipes in a short period of time.
Claim(s) 5-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Hinode as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2018139259A to Shigenori.
Claim 5: The apparatus of Ohno in view of Hinode does not disclose wherein a plurality of mixers is provided for the processing bath, and the controller is further configured to control the plurality of mixers to exclusively supply the mixture liquid to the processing bath.
However Shigenori discloses a plurality of mixers is provided for the processing bath, and the plurality of mixers exclusively supply the mixture liquid to the processing bath (para. [0016], [0023]) for the purpose of reducing the temperature difference between pipes (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Shigenori with motivation to reduce the temperature difference between pipes.
Claim 6: The apparatus of Ohno in view of Hinode does not disclose wherein a plurality of mixers is provided for a plurality of processing baths, and the controller is further configured to sequentially supply the mixture liquid to the plurality of processing baths that require supply of the mixture liquid from the mixer in which generation of the mixture liquid is completed.
Shigenori discloses wherein a plurality of mixers is provided for a plurality of processing baths, and the mixture liquid is sequentially supplied to the plurality of the processing baths that require supply of the mixture liquid from the mixer in which generation of the mixture liquid is completed (Fig. 4, 8, para. [0028-0051]) for the purpose of reducing the temperature difference of the processing liquid in the circulation pipes in a short period of time (para. [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Shigenori with motivation to reduce the temperature difference of the processing liquid in the circulation pipes in a short period of time.
Claims 9-10, 13-16: (Cancelled).
Claims 19-20: (Withdrawn).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 11-12, 17-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing bath in which a substate is immersed to be processed; a mixer configured to generate a mixture liquid by mixing a phosphoric acid aqueous solution with an additive that suppresses precipitation of silicon oxide; a liquid sending path configured to supply the mixture liquid from the mixer to the processing bath; a back pressure valve provided in the circulation path on a downstream side of a position from which the liquid sending path diverges; wherein the mixer includes a tank, and a circulation path that exits from the tank and returns to the tank, the liquid sending path is provided while being diverged from the circulation path.
However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest and a controller configured to control the processing bath, the mixer, the liquid sending path, the return path, and the back pressure valve, and the controller is further configured to open the back pressure valve when the mixture liquid is generated while circulating the mixture liquid through the circulation path, and throttle the back pressure valve when the mixture liquid is sent to the liquid sending path, as set forth in the present claims. The apparatus of Hiromi fails to disclose the limitations above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718