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
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 1-3, 8-10, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millman Jr et al (U.S.Pat. 8,415,587) in view of Vukovic et al (US2024/0419080).
With respect to claims 1 and 19, Millman discloses an edge-processing apparatus and a corresponding method comprising: a substrate holder (60; 61) configured to hold and rotate a substrate (30) and an exposure device having laser (10), optical fiber (23; 24) configured to radiate optical exposure energy toward a peripheral region of the substrate. Millman further discloses an exhaust arrangement including exhaust tube (40) for removing reaction by-products generated at the region at which the optical radiation processes the peripheral edge of wafer (30). Millan discloses that the wafer (30) is rotated through slot (41) of exhaust tube (40) that the optical radiation is directed to the edge-processing region and that ambient gas is drawn through the exhaust tube to carry reaction by-products away from the optical-reaction site. Thus, Millman teaches exhausting gas containing materials generate by irradiation of the peripheral region of the substrate. Millman expressly describes the removal of reaction by-products by an exhaust tube surrounding or enveloping the reaction region (see figures 5-8). Millman also teaches that the exhaust tube is moved into place around wafer (30) and carries by-products away from the reaction site during processing. Millman further teaches exhausting films, particles, or residues resulting form the reaction of optical radiation and fluid by positioning an exhaust tube to envelope the substrate edge. Regarding the limitation that the exhaust performs exhaust of “gas including sublimates generated by the exposure light”, it is the Examiner’s position that Millman expressly teaches drawing ambient gas through exhaust tube (40) while carrying away reaction by-products produced at the optical reaction site. Millan’s exhaust flow therefore includes a gas together with materials generated by the optical irradiation of the substrate. The term “sublimates” characterizes the physical form or composition of at least some of the materials contained in the exhaust flow and does not require a structurally different exhaust apparatus. As discussed, Millman teaches that optical radiation removes or transforms films, residues or particles and that an exhaust flow removes the resulting reaction products for the irradiation region.
Thus, Millman discloses substantially all limitations of the instant claims. Millman does not expressly disclose that the exhaust is configured with the presently claimed positional arrangement in which the exhaust is positioned outside the outer edge of the substrate and performs exhaust from a place corresponding to the irradiation position and extending along the outer edge of the substrate. Vukovic discloses a rotating substrate-processing apparatus including a processing emitter (426) positioned adjacent a peripheral processing region of the substrate (110) and a peripheral exhaust system having a plurality of exhaust openings or ports (422) communicating with an exhaust source (424). As illustrated, the exhaust openings are positioned radially outside and distributed along the outer peripheral edge of the rotating substrate, including adjacent the processing location. Vukovic therefore teaches a distributed peripheral exhaust configuration positioned outside and extending along the outer edge of a substrate for capturing materials generated during peripheral substrate processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust arrangement of Millman to position one or more exhaust openings radially outside and along the outer edge of wafer (30), including adjacent the irradiation or reaction position, as taught by Vukovic. The motivation of doing so would have been to improve collection efficiency of the reaction products, as the substrate rotates relative to the stationary processing and exhaust device.
As to claim 2, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the exhaust structure of Millman to include a plurality of exhaust opening connected to a common exhaust or buffer space, as taught by Vukovic, to distribute suction over a larger portion of the substrate edge and provide more uniform collection of reaction products.
As to claim 3 Millman teaches the exhaust has a suction member (see col.8, lines 60-61 and col.10, lines 13-15) configured to suction an inside of the exhaust buffer space via a suction opening opened to the exhaust space.
As to claims 9-10 and 17, Millan discloses an exposure device having a light emitting member (10); a light guide such as optical fiber (23) and a light radiator such as fiber optic head (24) and output coupler (27); a focusing lens (28) positioned between the output coupler and the edge of wafer (30).
As to claim 16, Millman discloses a rotating wafer-edge optical processing apparatus including wafer (30) rotated in one direction by servomotor assembly (16), an optical device and exhaust tube (40) continuously removing reaction products during optical processing. Millan further expressly recognizes the relationship between the direction of wafer rotation and the direction of exhaust flow. Millman teaches that reversing the direction of wafer rotation relative to the exhaust flow may increase the relative flow velocity at the wafer surface and improve exhaust performance. Vukovic discloses controller (400) configured to coordinate operation of substrate rotating, the processing emitter, airflow devices and exhaust devices during substrate processing. It would have been obvious to provide Millan’s apparatus with conventional controller circuitry as taught by Vukovic to coordinate: rotation of substrate; operation of the optical exposure device and continued operation of the exhaust system of Millman to ensure that the exhaust is active while reaction products are being generated and while the rotating substrate transports generated products toward or through the peripheral exhaust region, as intended.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millman in view of Vukovic, as applied above and further in view of Reder et al (U.S.Pat. 6,874,510).
With respect to claims 11-13, Millman as modified by Vukovic discloses substantially all of the limitations of the instant claims as discussed above including a gas dischargers (97-99) for discharging a gas from an inside of the edge of the substrate held by the substrate stage holder toward a space between the front surface of the substrate held by the substate holder and a facing portion of the exposurer facing the front surface of the substrate (see figures 8a-8c). Millman explains the gas may improve processing and enhance removal of unwanted reaction products. Millman however, does not expressly require the injected gas to be an inert gas. Reder discloses performing laser edge processing while simultaneously passing an inert purge gas through a nozzle toward the peripheral edge of a rotating wafer. The inert gas blows laser-removed deposits away from the wafer and prevents residue or slag from accumulating on other portions of the substrate. It would have been obvious to use an inert gas, as taught by Reder, as the gas supplied by the gas-injection system of Millman-Vukovic apparatus to avoid undesired chemical reactions with the substrate or processing apparatus and thereby improving the quality of the edge exposure apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed May 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8, 11, 14-16 and 19 have been amended. Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the amendment have been carefully reviewed but have been traversed in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
7/18/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights