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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Debris removal system as recited in claims 1-6 and 9-20
Features as recited in claims 10 and 17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Debris removal system is interpreted as centrifugal pump 22 and filter(s) 24 according to the specification [0033]
Features is interpreted as channels or grooves 82, 84 according to the specification [0031]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 6,001,216) in view of Paul Wayne Jeffrey (OA 18404A).
Regarding claim 1. The prior art of Lee teaches a wet etching system, comprising: a process tank (inner tank 11) configured to contain an etchant (etching solution), wherein the process tank 11 includes an inclined tank floor (inclined bottom wall 21); a drain port (outlet 26) provided at a lower-most location (converging lower portion 28) of the inclined tank floor 21 (See Fig. 2 and floor 22 see Figs. 3-6); a first valve 16 closing the drain port 26, wherein the first valve 16 is configured to open to drain the etchant in the tank through a debris-removal system (pump 14 and filter 15 see the paragraph that joins 3 and 4), and wherein the debris-removal system is configured to separate solid debris resulting from etching a substrate in the process tank from the etchant passing therethrough, and wherein the recirculation system (recirculation line 13) is configured to treat the etchant passing therethrough and return the treated etchant to the process tank.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Lee (US 6,001,216)
The prior art of Lee fails to teach one or more outlet ports provided on the inclined tank floor at a location higher than the drain port
The prior art of Jeffrey teaches a dewatering tank 10 with a downwardly inclined
floor 18 (see Figs. 2 and 4) and according to page 8 lines 13-15 where one or more drain holes 52 to drain the tank 10 for maintenance or cleaning purposes. See Jeffrey teaches that the one or more drain holes 52 may be disposed in the floor 18 and/or sump. The teachings of Jeffrey suggest one or more drain holes 52 above sump 24. Thus, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide one or more outlet ports as suggested by Jeffrey provided on the inclined tank floor at a location higher than the drain port of Lee.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Paul Wayne Jeffrey (OA 18404A)
PNG
media_image3.png
542
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Paul Wayne Jeffrey (OA 18404A)
See second valve 16 of Lee is configured to open to drain the etchant from the tank through a recirculation system
The combined teachings of Lee and Jeffrey fails to teach a second valve closing an outlet port of the one or more outlet ports. It is would have been obvious for one or
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Jeffery to provide
a second valve for the outlet port(s) to close an outlet port to provide independent control of the flow through the outlet ports separate from the flow through the drain port.
Regarding claim 2. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein the tank floor includes one or more inclined bottom surfaces. See Fig. 2 above of Lee with one inclined bottom surface 21 and multiple inclined bottom surfaces 22 as illustrated in Figs. 3-6 of Lee below.
PNG
media_image4.png
790
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
778
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein an angle of inclination of the tank floor is between X and Y degrees. Col. 4 lines 36-62 and claims 9 and 18 of Lee and the discussion of angle α.
Regarding claim 4. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein the angle of inclination is between X1 and Y1 degrees. see col. 4 lines 36-62 and claims 9 and 18 of Lee and the discussion of angle α.
Regarding claim 5. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein the drain port is closed by a valve that is configured to open to drain the etchant through the debris-removal system. See Figs. 3-6 and notice a valve 16 controls the drain of the etchant to the pump and filter.
Regarding claim 6. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more
outlet ports is closed by a valve that is configured to open to drain the etchant through the recirculation system. The prior art of Jeffrey teaches a dewatering tank 10 with a downwardly inclined floor 18 (see Figs. 2 and 4) and according to page 8 lines 13-15 where one or more drain holes 52 to drain the tank 10 for maintenance or cleaning purposes. See Jeffrey teaches that the one or more drain holes 52 may be disposed in the floor 18 and/or sump. The teachings of Jeffrey suggest one or more drain holes 52 above sump 24. Thus, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide one or more outlet ports as suggested by Jeffrey provided on the inclined tank floor at a location higher than the drain port of Lee.
See two occurrences of valve 16 of Lee is configured where one is open to drain
the etchant from the tank through a recirculation system
The combined teachings of Lee and Jeffrey fails to valve closing an outlet port of
the one or more outlet ports. It is would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Jeffery to provide a valve for the outlet port(s) to close an outlet port to provide independent control of the flow through the outlet ports separate from the flow through the drain port.
Regarding claim 7. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein the debris-removal system includes one or more filters configured to separate solid debris resulting from etching a substrate in the process tank from the etchant passing therethrough. See Figs. 2-6 of Lee with the debris-removal system featuring a filter 15 with a paragraph that joins columns 3 and 4 and the discussion of filtering in the paragraph that joins columns 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 8. The wet etching system of claim 7, wherein the debris-removal system further includes a centrifugal pump configured to move the etchant drained through the drain port through the one or more filters. See Figs. 2-6 of Lee with the debris-removal system featuring a pump P and a filter 15. The prior art of Lee does not specifically recite a centrifugal pump. The type of pump is a matter of design choice and optimalization would be chosen to provide the facilitate the transport of the process fluids as desired. It is would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Jeffery to provide a centrifugal pump as the type of pump in the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Jefferey.
Regarding claim 9. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein the recirculation system is configured to treat the etchant passing therethrough and return the treated etchant to the process tank. See Figs. 2-6 of Lee with recirculation line 13 to tank 11.
Regarding claim 11. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein the inclined tank floor includes multiple inclined bottom surfaces that converge towards the drain port. See Figs. 3-6 of Lee where the inclined bottom walls 22 converge to drain port 26.
Regarding claim 14. The prior art of Lee teaches wet etching system, comprising: a process tank (inner tank 11) configured to contain an etchant (etching solution), wherein the process tank includes an inclined tank floor (inclined bottom wall 21) having an angle α of inclination between X and Y degrees (see col. 4 lines 36-40) ; a drain port (outlet 26) provided at a lower-most location (converging lower portion 28) of the inclined tank floor 21 (See Fig. 2 and floor 22 see Figs. 3-6); a first valve 16 closing the drain port 26, wherein the first valve is configured to open to drain the etchant in the tank through a debris-removal system (pump 14 and filter 15 see the paragraph that joins 3 and 4), and wherein the debris-removal system is configured to separate solid debris resulting from etching a substrate in the process tank from the etchant passing therethrough, and wherein the recirculation system (recirculation line 13) is configured to treat the etchant passing therethrough and return the treated etchant to the process tank.
The prior art of Lee fails to teach one or more outlet ports provided on the inclined tank floor at a location higher than the drain port
The prior art of Jeffrey teaches a dewatering tank 10 with a downwardly inclined
floor 18 (see Figs. 2 and 4) and according to page 8 lines 13-15 where one or more drain holes 52 to drain the tank 10 for maintenance or cleaning purposes. See Jeffrey teaches that the one or more drain holes 52 may be disposed in the floor 18 and/or sump. The teachings of Jeffrey suggest one or more drain holes 52 above sump 24. Thus, it would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide one or more outlet ports as suggested by Jeffrey provided on the inclined tank floor at a location higher than the drain port of Lee.
See second valve 16 of Lee is configured to open to drain the etchant from the
tank through a recirculation system
The combined teachings of Lee and Jeffrey fails to teach a second valve closing
an outlet port of the one or more outlet ports. It is would have been obvious for one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Jeffery to provide a second valve for the outlet port(s) to close an outlet port to provide independent control of the flow through the outlet ports separate from the flow through the drain port.
Regarding claim 15. The wet etching system of claim 14, wherein the angle of inclination of the tank floor is between X1 and Y1 degrees. See col. 4 lines 36-62 and claims 9 and 18 of Lee and the discussion of angle α.
Regarding claim 16. The wet etching system of claim 14, wherein the inclined tank floor (bottom wall 22) includes multiple inclined bottom surfaces that converge (lowermost portion 28) towards the drain port. See first full paragraph of col. 5 and Figs. 3-6 of Lee.
Regarding claim 18. The wet etching system of claim 14, wherein the tank floor (inclined bottom wall 22) includes multiple inclined bottom surfaces that converge towards the drain port (outlet 26). See Figs. 3-6 of Lee.
Regarding claim 20. The wet etching system of claim 14, where the process tank is configured to receive one or more glass substrates and the etching is configured to etch the one or more glass substrates. Note the substrate worked upon is not structurally part of the apparatus and is thus not given structurally patentable weight. The limitation describing the type of substrate etched by the etchant is interpreted as a matter of an intended use.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 6,001,216) in view of Paul Wayne Jeffrey (OA 18404A) as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 in further view of Huang et al (US 2005/0279452).
The combined teachings of Lee and Paul Wayne Jeffrey were discussed above.
The combined teachings fails to teach:
Regarding claim 10. The wet etching system of claim 1, wherein the inclined tank floor includes one or more features configured to assist in movement of solid debris resulting from etching a substrate in the process tank towards the drain port.
Regarding claim 17. The wet etching system of claim 14, wherein the inclined tank floor includes one or more features configured to assist the movement of the solid debris towards the drain port.
The prior art of Huang et al teaches an etching reaction chamber 30 with protrusions 301 (features) see Figs. 1 and 2 of Huang et al below. According to [0019] of Huang et al the protrusions are provided along the bottom of the etching chamber to redirect the flow of the etchant. The plural protrusions 301 help generate plural circulations of etching liquid, because of the convection phenomenon. A distance between each protrusion 301 and the etching liquid entrance 35 is shorter than a distance between the corresponding side 33 of the etching reaction chamber 30 and the etching liquid entrance 35. Thus the etching liquid flowing from the etching liquid entrance 35 flows to each protrusion 301 quicker than it does to the corresponding side 33. This can reduce the time required to etch the wafer 7. In addition, as described above, the lower concentration etching liquid near the wafer 7 is continuously replenished and replaced by higher concentration etching liquid traveling thereto from the other areas of the etching reaction chamber 30. This helps ensure that the wafer 7 is etched uniformly. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Paul Wayne Jeffrey to provide features as suggested Huang et al to enhance control of the etchant flow path to ensure more uniform etching of the wafer and reduce etching time.
PNG
media_image6.png
728
552
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 6,001,216) in view of Paul Wayne Jeffrey (OA 18404A) as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 in further view of Park et al (US 7,931,035).
The combined teachings of Lee and Paul Wayne Jeffrey were discussed above.
The combined teachings fails to teach:
Regarding claim 12. The wet etching system of claim 1, further including a de-ionized water sparger positioned in the process tank and configured to spray de-ionized water on the inclined tank floor.
Regarding claim 13. The wet etching system of claim 1, further including a nitrogen sparger positioned in the process tank.
Regarding claim 19. The wet etching system of claim 14, further including a de-ionized water sparger positioned in the process tank and configured to spray de-ionized water on the inclined tank floor.
The prior art of Park et al teaches a method and apparatus for cleaning wafers. See Fig. 4 where DI water nozzles 34 and mitogen nozzles are provided to transport these fluids respectively from their respective sources. The prior art of Park et al fails to specifically recite that spargers are used to transport the water and nitrogen. Spargers are ark recognized types of nozzles that facilitate introducing gases into liquids in order to enhance mixing, aeration, and reaction efficiency. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Paul Wayne Jeffrey to provide spargers as the type of nozzle as suggested by Park et al used transport process fluids in the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Lee and Paul Wayne Jeffrey to enhance control of the etchant flow path to ensure more uniform etching of the wafer and reduce etching time Lee and Paul Wayne Jeffrey.
PNG
media_image7.png
620
564
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,738,272 see Fig. 6 where the processing vessel (tank) has inclined floor walls and the drain port is provided at the lower most location of the inclined tank floor.
US 2012/0240958 see Figs. 1 and 18. See valves 39,49 which are treatment vessel drain valves and the processing vessel 2 (tank) has inclined floor walls and the drain port is provided at the lower most location of the inclined tank floor.
US 3,853,094 see Fig, 1 where the funnel 11 where the plating solution is recycled from the apex 11a (lower most location) of the inclined tank floor. See col. 7 lines 43-49 where the angle of tank floor is 48°.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights