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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on May 5, 2026 was received. Claims 1-2, 9 and 19 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued February 13, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 8 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn because Applicant amended the claim to fix the antecedent basis issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hashima (US 2017/0087575) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20200050259, translation filed 2/13/2026 used for citation purposes) on claims 1 and 4-10 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Hashima discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a substrate holding unit (110) which holds a wafer (W) while it is treated by an auxiliary nozzle (11) and a main nozzle (14) which are a first and second discharge unit for discharging a first and second processing liquid to the substrate (par. 62, figures 1 and 10), where the auxiliary nozzle (11) is provided with a number of measuring units (51, 52, 53) which measure the charge state of the processing liquid sent to and discharged from the nozzle (11) (pars. 37-38, 46, figure 1).
Hashima further discloses that part of controlling the charge of the liquid includes using the main nozzle (14) as a supplement to the auxiliary nozzle (11) based on the charge readings and charge desired (pars. 56, 62-70, figure 10), which suggests that the second nozzle discharges the liquid based on a difference between subsequent charges measured. Furthermore, part of the process of Hashima is drawn to using the auxiliary nozzle (11) and main nozzle (14) to control the final potential on the surface of the wafer (W), with one example stating that the surface potential is set to be zero at the central portion and – E3V at the edge portions, by using the electrodes (71) to charge the liquid discharged from the nozzles (11, 14) based on the measured values (par. 62-69) by way of a controller (200) (figure 9). While this example does not specifically cancel out the charge on all of the surfaces, Hashima teaches that the apparatus can be used for other processes that require different target surface potentials including a value of zero (par. 81), and teaches that the surface potential target values are determined through experiments for achieving optimization (par. 56) such that the target surface potential is a result effective variable. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment and optimize the target surface potential when using the apparatus to be zero, thus having the second processing liquid charged to cancel out the charge on the surface, because optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Hashima fails to explicitly disclose a bowl disposed around the holding unit (110) or a second measurement unit measuring the charges scattered from the substrate to the bowl. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus designed to determine charge level of the liquid which uses a static electricity measurement sensor (171) provided on a bowl (110) in order to measure the static electricity inside the bowl and around the substrate (pages 4, 6, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bowl and static electricity measurement sensor of Lee et al. for the apparatus of Hashima because Lee et al. teaches that it allows for the prevention of problems associated with static electricity not just in the fluid but also around the substrate and the bowl without causing damage to the sensor by way of cleaning chemicals (page 2).
Regarding claim 4: Hashima and Lee et al. disclose the above combination in which Lee et al. teaches that the static electricity measurement sensor (171) is disposed on a surface of the bowl (110) and includes a circuit connected to the sensor (171) to measure the static electricity voltage and thus current (pages 5-6, figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 5: Hashima and Lee et al. disclose the above combination in which Lee et al. shows that the bowl (110) has at least three bowl sections, which can be considered an upper bowl, lower bowl and middle bowl, as shown in the annotated figure below (figure 4). While Lee et al. discloses only a single measurement sensor (171) having an electrode on the upper bowl, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one such sensor (171) and place it on or near the middle bowl and lower bowl because simple duplication of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and because trying from a finite number of locations (i.e. putting the duplicate electrodes on the upper, middle, or lower bowl sections) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
[AltContent: textbox (Middle bowl)][AltContent: textbox (Lower bowl)][AltContent: textbox (Upper bowl)]
PNG
media_image1.png
554
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6: Hashima discloses that a number of other nozzles (12, 13) can have the measuring unit and charging configuration as the auxiliary nozzle (11), and while Hashima does not explicitly say that the main nozzle (14) can also have this configuration, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the same electrical configuration for the liquid supply for the main nozzle (14) because using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143). In this case, the main nozzle (14) has another measuring unit (53) as well as a charge amount control unit (61) which is a charging unit that charges the liquid (par. 37, 48, figures 2, 7).
Regarding claim 7: Hashima discloses that the measuring units (53) include an electrode (71) which is on a surface of a supply flow path of all of the nozzles (11, 12, 13) as well as the main nozzle (14) in the above modification and includes a controller (200) which has circuitry connected to the electrode (71) by way of a surface potential measuring unit (77) such that it measures current (par. 38, 44, 46, 76, figures 5-6 and 9).
Regarding claim 8: Hashima discloses that the charge control unit (61) also includes an electrode (71) for charging the liquid on a surface of the flow path of the nozzle, with a charging circuit (63) connected thereto (par. 38, figure 7).
Regarding claim 9: Hashima discloses that the controller (200) controls the charge control unit (61) (par. 52) and teaches that in use, the process is drawn to measuring the charge amount of the liquid and using the charge control unit (61) to adjust the actual charge based on the measured charges and the desired charge (pars. 36-37, 48-49) in order to cancel out the charge, i.e. by charging the liquid to a positive power supply (631) if the measured charge is negative or a negative power supply (632) if the measured charge is positive (par. 56).
Regarding claim 10: Hashima teaches that the apparatus is drawn to any liquid processing liquid (par. 3) and while Hashima does not explicitly teach that the liquids are anti-reflective solution and a prewet liquid, the contents of the apparatus (i.e., the material used by the apparatus of the substrate it works on) in an apparatus claim are not considered to impart patentability to the apparatus claim (MPEP 2114-2115). Hashima explicitly teaches that any type of liquid processing can be used in this invention (par. 3) so it is clearly capable of being used with an anti-reflective coating liquid or a prewet liquid.
Claims 2-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashima in view of Lee et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4-10 above, and further in view of Miyagi (US 2008/0173327).
Regarding claim 2: Hashima discloses that the measuring units (53) include an electrode (71) which is on a surface of a flow path of the first nozzle (11) and includes a controller (200) which has circuitry connected to the electrode (71) by way of a surface potential measuring unit (77) such that it measures current (par. 38, 44, 46, 76, figures 5-6 and 9) and further teaches that the locations of the electrodes, measuring units and charge control units do not need to be in the locations shown, but can be anywhere in the apparatus as long as they come into contact with the processing liquid (pars. 82-84), but Hashima still fails to explicitly disclose the electrodes and measuring units being provided inside the body of the nozzle.
However, Miyagi discloses a similar substrate treatment apparatus which includes electrodes (61, 62) within the nozzle (3) body, and even shows that one electrode (62) which contacts the processing liquid can alternatively be provided in the liquid flow path (figure 4) or alternatively, directly inside the nozzle (3) body (figures 2, 6) (pars. 32-34, figures 2, 4 and 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the electrodes and measuring units of Hashima inside the nozzles in the same way as in Miyagi because Miyaga shows that a liquid-contacting electrode being in the flow path or directly in the nozzle are functionally equivalent (figs. 4, 2, 6) and since Hashima explicitly says the electrodes can be anywhere that they contact the liquid, simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06), and simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3: Hashima discloses that the electrode (71) is covered, or coated by a shielding conductor (76) which shields an external electric field (pars. 42-43, figure 5). Alternatively, the electrode (71) itself is directly coated with a thick shielding film which can be considered to shield an external electric field (par. 39).
Regarding claim 19: Hashima discloses a substrate processing apparatus including a substrate holding unit (110) which holds a wafer (W) while it is treated by an auxiliary nozzle (11) and a main nozzle (14) which are a first and second discharge unit for discharging a first and second processing liquid to the substrate (par. 62, figures 1 and 10), where the auxiliary nozzle (11) is provided with a number of measuring units (51, 52, 53) which measure the charge state of the processing liquid sent to and discharged from the nozzle (11) (pars. 37-38, 46, figure 1). Hashima further discloses that the measuring units (53) include an electrode (71) which is on a surface of a flow path of the first nozzle (11) and includes a controller (200) which has circuitry connected to the electrode (71) by way of a surface potential measuring unit (77) such that it measures current (par. 38, 44, 46, 76, figures 5-6 and 9).
Hashima discloses that a number of other nozzles (12, 13) can have the measuring unit and charging configuration as the auxiliary nozzle (11), and while Hashima does not explicitly say that the main nozzle (14) can also have this configuration, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the same electrical configuration for the liquid supply for the main nozzle (14) because using a known technique to improve a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143). In this case, the main nozzle (14) has another measuring unit (53) as well as a charge amount control unit (61) which is a charging unit that charges the liquid (par. 37, 48, figures 2, 7), the charge control unit (61) including an electrode (71) for charging the liquid on a surface of the flow path of the nozzle, with a charging circuit (63) connected thereto (par. 38, figure 7).
Hashima further discloses that part of controlling the charge of the liquid includes using the main nozzle (14) as a supplement to the auxiliary nozzle (11) based on the charge readings and charge desired (pars. 56, 62-70, figure 10), which suggests that the second nozzle discharges the liquid based on a difference between subsequent charges measured. Furthermore, part of the process of Hashima is drawn to using the auxiliary nozzle (11) and main nozzle (14) to control the final potential on the surface of the wafer (W), with one example stating that the surface potential is set to be zero at the central portion and – E3V at the edge portions, by using the electrodes (71) to charge the liquid discharged from the nozzles (11, 14) based on the measured values (par. 62-69) by way of a controller (200) (figure 9). While this example does not specifically cancel out the charge on all of the surfaces, Hashima teaches that the apparatus can be used for other processes that require different target surface potentials including a value of zero (par. 81), and teaches that the surface potential target values are determined through experiments for achieving optimization (par. 56) such that the target surface potential is a result effective variable. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment and optimize the target surface potential when using the apparatus to be zero, thus having the second processing liquid charged to cancel out the charge on the surface, because optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Hashima fails to explicitly disclose a bowl with a recovery line disposed around the holding unit (110) or a second measurement unit measuring the charges scattered from the substrate to the bowl. However, Lee et al. discloses a similar substrate processing apparatus designed to determine charge level of the liquid which uses a static electricity measurement sensor (171) provided on a bowl (110) which has a receiving portion (114) with a drain line (118) and exhaust line (119), the sensor (171) positioned on the bowl in order to measure the static electricity inside the bowl and around the substrate (pages 4, 6, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bowl and static electricity measurement sensor of Lee et al. for the apparatus of Hashima because Lee et al. teaches that it allows for the prevention of problems associated with static electricity not just in the fluid but also around the substrate and the bowl without causing damage to the sensor by way of cleaning chemicals (page 2).
Hashima discloses that the measuring units (53) include an electrode (71) which is on a surface of a flow path of the first nozzle (11) and includes a controller (200) which has circuitry connected to the electrode (71) by way of a surface potential measuring unit (77) such that it measures current (par. 38, 44, 46, 76, figures 5-6 and 9) and further teaches that the locations of the electrodes, measuring units and charge control units do not need to be in the locations shown, but can be anywhere in the apparatus as long as they come into contact with the processing liquid (pars. 82-84), but Hashima still fails to explicitly disclose the electrodes and measuring units being provided inside the body of the nozzle.
However, Miyagi discloses a similar substrate treatment apparatus which includes electrodes (61, 62) within the nozzle (3) body, and even shows that one electrode (62) which contacts the processing liquid can alternatively be provided in the liquid flow path (figure 4) or alternatively, directly inside the nozzle (3) body (figures 2, 6) (pars. 32-34, figures 2, 4 and 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the electrodes and measuring units of Hashima inside the nozzles in the same way as in Miyagi because Miyaga shows that a liquid-contacting electrode being in the flow path or directly in the nozzle are functionally equivalent (figs. 4, 2, 6) and since Hashima explicitly says the electrodes can be anywhere that they contact the liquid, simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06), and simple rearrangement of parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 20: Hashima discloses that both the measuring units (53) and charging units (61) have shielding conductors (76) provided around them such that they are effectively coated with them, the shielding conductors blocking an external electric field (pars. 42-43, figures 5 and 7). Alternatively, the electrodes (71) themselves are directly coated with a thick shielding film which can be considered to shield an external electric field (par. 39).
The alternate claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hashima and Lee et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4-9 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US 6,159,541) on claim 10 maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 10: Hashima discloses that the apparatus is drawn to any liquid processing liquid (par. 3, 81) but Hashima fails to explicitly teach that the liquids are anti-reflective solution and a prewet liquid. However, Sakai et al. discloses a similar spin coating process in which supplies liquids including an anti-reflective solution (col. 1 lines 5-8) and a pre-wetting solvent (col. 13 lines 37-47). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these liquids as taught by Sakai et al. in the apparatus of Hashima because Hashima teaches that it is useful for any type of liquid (par. 3) and because using a known technique to improve a known process is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Hashima’s process is drawn to creating a surface potential on the wafer that has a positive value at the periphery and is zero in the center, such that it is not cancelled out over the entire surface, that Lee et al. has the sensor on the outside of the bowl and not the inside, and that the new limitation in claim 2 is not taught by the references.
In response:
Regarding Hashima, Applicant’s argument is apparently drawn to only a single example process disclosed by Hashima, and ignores much of the rest of the text which indicates that the apparatus can be simply used to cancel out any potential on the surface to arrive at a zero potential (see par. 56, 81), and that even if these examples didn’t teach the exact claimed cancelling, they still clearly show that the target potential on the wafer surface is a result effective variable which is obvious to optimize, and as these values are controlled by way of the specific charging of the liquid the amount charged is also a result effective variable- Hashima even explicitly states that these values are determined via experimentation and optimization (par. 54).
Regarding the location of the sensor in Lee et al., Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Nothing in the claims specify that the electrode or circuit in the bowl has to be arranged on an inner surface thereof- and Lee et al. specifically states that even on the outside wall its sensor is capable of determining the charge in the processing space and at the substrate (see figures 7-8).
Regarding the new limitations in claim 2, Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited Miyagi reference which does teach including an electrode inside the body of the nozzle specifically as a functional equivalent to being in an external flow path (figures 2, 4, 6).
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
6/18/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights