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(s) Status
Claims 1-20 are pending as originally filed 06/26/2024.
Priority
This application is a DIV of 17/534,423, filed 11/23/2021, now US 12,025,553 B2, which was a DIV of 16/514,155, filed 07/17/2019, now US 11,199,466 B2.
This application also claims benefit of provisional U.S. application 62/725,544, filed 08/31/2018.
Drawings
The drawings filed 06/26/2024 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 06/26/2024 has been considered by the Primary Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The PRIORITY CLAIM section should be re-named CROSS-REFERENCE TO REALTED APPLICATIONS. Moreover, the reference to parent application 17/534,423 should be updated to reflect that it has issued as US 12,025,553 B2.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 7-14 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.
In the last two lines of claim 7 read: “based on an intensity of refracted from the end portion of the liquid supply pipe.” This limitation is indefinite because the intensity of what it is that’s being refracted is omitted. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are impossible to determine.
Claims 8-14 are similarly rejected because they incorporate this indefinite subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
For the purposes of searching and applying prior art, the Primary Examiner interprets the last two lines of claim 7 as reading: - - based on an intensity of light refracted from the end portion of the liquid supply pipe. - -.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2006-0074538 A (“KR 538;” reference made to attached English-language machine translation and examiner-annotated figures reproduced below), in view of CN 2020074239 U (“CN 239;” reference made to attached English-language machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KR 538 Fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
442
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KR 538 Fig. 2 (annotated)
Claim 1
KR 538 teaches a process for detecting leakage in liquid developer supply pipe (12) of a semiconductor unit. Nozzle (14) is attached to the supply pipe (12) for dispensing liquid developer solution (i.e., “a processing liquid”) onto wafer (W). Insofar as leak detection sensor (18) surrounds or encompasses the supply pipe (12) and the nozzle (14), it reads on the claimed “an end portion of the liquid supply pipe adjoined to the nozzle is covered with a pipe casing.” In the alternative, supply pipe (12) is itself surrounded by another housing (12’), which also reads on the claimed pipe casing. As the nozzle (14) is moved from its standby location to its dispensing position over the center of the wafer (W), “the system control unit (20) . . . determine[s] whether a leakage monitoring signal, i.e., a developer leakage signal resulting from the developer spraying nozzle (14), is applied from the leakage detection sensor (18)” [p. 8].
KR 538 additionally teaches that the “leak detection sensor (18) may be composed of, for example, a receiving/emitting element, and such a configuration can be easily implemented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field of the present invention,” p. 7, but does not explicitly teach illuminating the end portion of the liquid supply pipe with a light beam as the nozzle is moved from the standby location to the dispensing location; and measuring an intensity of a light beam refracted by the end portion of the liquid supply pipe.
CN 239 teaches a semiconductor manufacturing device in which leakage of processing liquid is detected by use of a sleeve, a reflector, a moisture-sensitive film, a light source, and a photodetector [0009 at 5]. The sleeve surrounds the processing liquid delivery pipe forming a liquid-holding space between the sleeve and the pipe [id.]. The reflector is mounted on the outer wall of the sleeve [id.]. A moisture-sensitive film covers the reflector, wherein the film allows transmittance of light when it is wet but is opaque when dry [0009 at 6]. The light source is used to illuminate the moisture-sensitive film and the photodetector receives reflected light from the mirror [id.]. An increase in the intensity of the light reflected from the reflector indicates a leak.
The Primary Examiner acknowledges the difference between reflection and refraction. Nevertheless, in CN 239, the light undergoes some degree of refraction when passing through the moisture-sensitive film — with none allowed to pass while the film is dry and 100% allowed to pass when completely wet — since it passes through a different medium (the film) that impedes its transmittance.1
Because KR 538 teaches that a receiving/emitting element-based leak detector “can be easily implemented by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field of the present invention,” supra, 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 process of KR 538 so as to utilize a moisture-sensitive film-mediated light emitter/photoreceptor leak sensor such as that taught by CN 239 as such a sensor is known in the semiconductor coating art as a means for detecting leakage of a processing liquid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully detecting a leak when applying the liquid processing material in KR 538. See, e.g., MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 2-4
KR 538 teaches that a leak indication triggers an alarm [p. 7]. CN 239 teaches that the intensity of the light refracted through the moisture-sensitive film increases when the film becomes wet from a leak and that an alarm, coupled to the photodetector, issues an alarm signal when the intensity of light received by the photodetector increases [0015 at 8].
Claim 5
Neither KR 538 nor CN 239 teach that the pipe casing has a thickness less than 0.2 mm. Nevertheless, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that the thickness of the casing — either of the wall of the housing of the sensor (18) or the housing (12’) — is a result-effective variable. The wall must be thick enough to provide sufficient structural support, insulation, etc., while not being so thick that it is needlessly wasteful of materials or deleteriously impacts the operation of the semiconductor processing apparatus.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pipe casing thickness by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). There is nothing of record to indicate that optimization of the pipe casing thickness involved anything other than the exercise of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim(s) 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2006-0074538 A (“KR 538;” reference made to attached English-language machine translation and examiner-annotated figures reproduced below), in view of CN 2020074239 U (“CN 239;” reference made to attached English-language machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of JP S63-201546 A (“JP 546;” reference made to attached English-language machine translation).
Claim 6, 13, and 15
The combined teaching of KR 538 in view of CN 239 teaches all of the limitations of this claim, supra, except that the moisture-sensitive film being illuminated is a liquid absorbing paper.
JP 546 teaches a “leak sensor that can reliably detect leaks by irradiating a filter than becomes transparent when it absorbs leaked liquid with light from a light source, and detecting the amount of change in transmitted or reflected light from the filter when a leak occurs” [p. 3]. Thus the detector of JP 546 functions in a fashion identical to that of CN 239. JP 546 teaches that the filter is specifically “a thin white paper (absorbent paper)” [p. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize, as the moisture sensitive film that becomes more transmissive to light as it gets wet, a piece of thin, white, absorbent paper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation, taught by JP 546, that such a paper can be used in such a fashion in such a leak detector. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A)-(B).
Claim 7
The combined teaching of KR 538, CN 239, and JP 546 is detailed, supra, including the use of liquid absorbing paper.
KR 538 teaches that an alarm is generated when a leak is detected while the developer supply pipe is moving toward the center of the wafer (i.e., before the developer is supplied by the nozzle).
Claims 8, 11, and 16-17
Insofar as KR 538 teaches that the leak detection alarm is to prevent deviations from a set wafer recipe by leaking material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to both stop the process when an alarm is triggered and to proceed with the process when no alarm is triggered [see pp. 7-8].
Claims 9 & 20
While not expressly taught, it would have been obvious to move the nozzle back to the standby position after dispensing so as to have the nozzle (14) and pipe (12) out of the way so as to facilitate removal of the treated wafer (W) and placement of a new one, or further processing of the treated wafer (e.g., further coating).
Claims 10, 14, and 18
KR 538 teaches that the wafer (W) is placed on a spin chuck [p. 3, penultimate line]. In the alternative, spin coating is common and conventional means in the wafer coating art for distributing a liquid material dispensed from a nozzle above the wafer so as to achieve a uniform coating thereon.
Claim 12
None of the cited references teach that the material is a photoresist. Rather, KR 538 teaches that the material is a developer (presumably for a photoresist). Nevertheless, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that the application and leak detection mechanisms of the cited prior art would be effective for any liquid material capable of being dispensed from nozzle (14), including a photoresist material and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize the method of the combined teaching of KR 538, CN 239, and JP 546, to apply a photoresist material to the wafer (W).
Claim 19
CN 239 teaches an IR light source [0055].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
24 June 2026
1 Refraction is “[t]he phenomenon whereby a ray of light (or other electromagnetic radiation) is diverted or deflected from its previous course in passing from one medium into another, or in traversing a medium of varying density.” Refraction, Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/refraction_n (last accessed Jun. 24, 2026).
Prosecution Insights