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 § 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 1-20 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.
As to claims 1, 16 and 19, the limitations of “an exhaust ...to perform exhaust from a space/at least a space corresponding to a radiation position of the exposurer” render the claims indefinite since it is unclear what is being exhausted from the space. The claims do not specify whether the exhaust removes gas, air, vapor, particles or another material. Therefore, the scope, breadth and meaning of the exhaust function is unclear and the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Furthermore, it is unclear what structural or positional relationship constitute “corresponding”. The claims do not specify whether this refers to alignment in a radial direction, angular direction, projected optical path or another positional relationship.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and as understood by one ordinary skill in the art. Functional language such as “configured to” or “to perform” is interpreted as covering any structure capable of performing the recited function. The term “corresponding” to is interpreted broadly to indicate a positional, spatial or functional relationship , and does not require exact alignment, overlap or coincidence unless explicitly recited. Furthermore, terminology such as “exhaust” is interpreted broadly to include removal of fluid, gas, air, vapor, particle or combinations thereof, unless otherwise limited by the claims.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Millman, Jr, et al (U.S.Pat. 8,415,587).
With respect to claims 1 and 19, Millman discloses an edge exposure apparatus and a corresponding method comprising all features of the instant claims such as: a rotary substrate holder (60) configured to hold and rotate (see col.8, lines 58-60) a substrate (30); an exposurer (10-16; 24) configured to radiate exposure light toward a peripheral region of a front surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder and an exhaust (40) position outside of an edge of the substrate held by the substrate holder, the exhaust configured to perform exhaust from a place corresponding to a radiation position of the exposurer and extending along the edge of the substrate (see figures 5-8).
As to claim 16, although Millman does not expressly disclose “circuitry configured to control the exposurer”, this feature is seen to be an inherent element of the apparatus for processing edges of substrate of Millan since it must be present for the apparatus of Millan to function as intended.
As to claim 2, the exhaust includes multiple exhaust openings (41) arranged along the edge of the substrate and an exhaust buffer space (see figures 8a-8c) connected to the multiple exhaust opening and the exhaust buffer.
As to claim 3, the exhaust has a suction member (see col.8, lines 60-61; 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 and 17, the exposurer has a light emitter member (20; 22), a light guide (23) and a light radiator (10).
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vukovic (U.S.2024/0419080 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 19, Vukovic discloses an edge exposure apparatus and a corresponding method comprising all features of the instant claims such as: a rotary substrate holder (105) configured to hold and rotate a substrate (110); an exposurer (426-427) configured to radiate exposure light toward a peripheral region of a front surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder and an exhaust (see figure 4; 424) position outside of an edge of the substrate held by the substrate holder, the exhaust configured to perform exhaust from a place corresponding to a radiation position of the exposurer and extending along the edge of the substrate.
As to claim 16, although Vukovic does not expressly disclose “circuitry configured to control the exposurer”. However, Vukovic discloses a controller (440) to control the exposurer (426) while the substrate is rotated in the one direction by the substrate holder (105) in a state where the exhaust continues to perform exhaust. Therefore, the circuitry is seen to be an inherent element of the controller (440) and it must be present for the apparatus of Vukovic to function as intended.
As to claim 2, the exhaust includes multiple exhaust openings/spaces arranged along the edge of the substrate and an exhaust buffer space (see figure 4; 7) connected to the multiple exhaust opening and the exhaust buffer.
As to claim 3, the exhaust has a suction member (424) configured to suction an inside of the exhaust buffer space via a suction opening opened to the exhaust space.
As to claims 9 and 17, the exposurer has a light emitter member (426-427), a light guide and a light radiator (see figure 4).
As to claim 11, a gas discharger (418; 420) configured to discharge an inert gas from an inside of the edge of the substrate held by the substrate holder toward a space between the front surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder and a facing portion of the exposurer facing the front surface of the substrate (see paragraph [0063]).
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.
Claim 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millman, Jr, et al (U.S.Pat. 8,415,587).
With respect to claims 10, 18 and 20, Millman discloses an edge exposure apparatus comprising substantially all of the limitations of the instant claims as discussed above, including the light radiator with a housing, an entry slit, an entry lens (28), an exit slit (see figure 6a). Millan lacks to show a mirror and shutter, as recited in the claims. However, Millman suggests that “a fiber optic head 24 that focuses a laser beam 12 form an incoming fiber 23 onto the edge of wafer 30. It includes an output coupler 27at the end of the fiber 23 and a focusing lens 28, which contains one or more elements, mounted between the output coupler 27 and the edge of wafer 30” (see col. 8, lines 39-44). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize a mirror and a shutter into the exposurer of Millman to generate a desired light beam onto the edge of the wafer, as intended.
Claims 11-13 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 Reder (U.S. Pat. 6,874,510).
With respect to claims 11-13, Millman suggests to provide a gas discharger (97-99) for discharging a gas from an inside of the edge of the substrate held by the substrate holder toward a space between the front surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder and a facing portion of the exposurer facing the front surface of the substrate (see figure 8a-8c). Millman does not expressly disclose the gas being an inert gas. This feature is well known per se. Reder et al discloses an edge exposure apparatus having a laser beam and an inert gas discharger (65) for removing particles from the edge of a substrate and the angle in a direction of discharging the inert gas from a discharge opening of the gas discharger with respect to the front surface of the substrate held by the substrate holder being from 5 to 15 degrees (see figure 2). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to employ the inert gas as suggested by Reder into the gas discharger of Millman for the at least the purpose of removing unwanted particles from the edger of the substrate thereby improving the quality of the edge exposure apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 4-7, while the prior art teaches providing exhaust structures and fluid removal systems in proximity to edge processing locations. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest an exhaust buffer space having a geometry specifically defined relative to both a line passing through a center of the substrate and a radiation position of the exposurer and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, as recited in claims 4-7.
Further, the prior art does not teach or suggest:
As claim 4, configuring the exhaust buffer space such that at least a portion of the exhaust buffer space decreases in size in the direction as a distance from a suction opening in the second direction increases.
As to claims 5-6, configurating the exhaust buffer space to be-line symmetrical with respect to the defined line.
As to claim 7, configuring a width of the exhaust buffer space in the second direction to be smaller than a width of the substrate in the direction.
With respect to claims 14-15, claims have been found allowable since the prior art of record teaches performing edge processing and providing gas discharge and/or exhaust systems for removing process byproducts during substrate processing operations. The prior art also teaches providing gas flows and purge environments in processing tools. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest controlling an exhaust rate or gas discharge rate based on whether exposure light is being radiated toward a predetermined range including a notch portion of the substrate, as recited in claims 14-15.
Prior Art Made Of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaneyama et al (U.S.Pat. 9,477,162); Tanaka et al (U.S.Pat. 11,986,853) disclose edge exposure apparatuses and have been cited for technical background.
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
1/31/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882