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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12-1-25.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 and 20 in the reply filed on 12-1-25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that claims corresponding to Inventions I and II are related to similar subject matter and as a result, separate searches would likely identify the same references. This is not found persuasive because similar claim limitations can have different interpretations based on the claim being directed to a method vs an apparatus resulting in the inventions having acquired different classifications and a separate status requiring a different field of search (e.g., searching different class/subclasses or resources, or employing different search strategies or search quarries). As a result, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
The term “reduce” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduce” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification discusses minimizing splashing under particular processing conditions; however, these conditions are not required by the structure of the nozzle. Therefore, it is unclear what the travel distance is reduced from. As a result, the metes and bounds of the structure required to meet the claim is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that a nozzle that has the structure of claim 3 meets the claimed functional feature recited in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
KR 102090975 is the closest prior art which teaches an inlet mesh used in a substrate cleaning apparatus as discussed below with regard to claim 3. However, KR 102090975 teaches a flat geometry and does not teach a reason to change the geometry to a conical geometry. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and therefore, would be allowable based on the dependence on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teng et al. US 2017/0170035 (US’035).
Regarding claim 1, US’035 teaches a semiconductor substrate cleaning chamber (see fig. 44-45, para. 111-112, cleaning chamber 27), comprising:
side walls that partially define a cleaning volume (inner wall of the cleaning chamber 27, para. 111-112, fig. 44-45);
a pedestal disposed within the side walls (spin chuck 26 para. 110-114, fig. 44-45);
a cleaning arm disposed above the pedestal (spray arm 21, see para. 114-116, fig. 44-46), the cleaning arm comprising:
a nozzle assembly disposed on a nozzle end of the cleaning arm (nozzle 3, para. 70-71, fig. 1), the nozzle assembly comprising:
a housing (nozzle 3 encloses structural components of the fluid and gas dispensing components, see fig. 2); and
a body disposed within the housing (gas pipe 2 and 5 for introducing cleaning gas and combining the gas with liquid is located within the structure of nozzle 3, see fig.7-8 and 26, para. 69-85) and having
a gas port disposed through the body and configured to aerate a fluid passing through the nozzle assembly (an atomized mixture of gas a liquid is sprayed from the cleaning medium outlet to perform an offline cleaning to the lower end of the atomized particle guiding outlet, para. 31, para. 103, wherein aerating is the introduction of air into a material, therefore the mixing the gas with liquid performed by the nozzle reads on aerate a fluid passing through the nozzle assembly).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’035 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emoto US 2016/0372320 (US’320).
Regarding claim 2, US’035 teaches the cleaning chamber of claim 1.
US’035 is silent about the material of the nozzle and specifically wherein the body comprises a polymer material.
US’320 teaches a substrate processing method and apparatus (abstract). US’320 further teaches the material of a substrate processing nozzle can be made of a synthetic resin, such as PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), a polymer material, which has chemical resistance (para. 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’320 to include wherein the body comprises a polymer material because US’320 teaches it is a common chemically resistant material to constructed a substrate processing nozzle from and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (B).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’035 in view of US’320 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of KR 102090975 (KR’975) (machine translation used for citations) in view of Kanno et al. US 2007/0141849 (US’849).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of US’035 teaches the cleaning chamber of claim 2. wherein the body further comprises: a fluid inlet disposed in the housing (liquid intake pipeline 2, para. 71, see fig. 7-8); a porous member disposed opposite of the fluid inlet (a liquid-gas guiding part 7 for forming microscale or nanoscale atomized particles with uniform size more effectively, improve the cleaning efficiency, and reduce the pattern damages, para. 78-80, fig. 7-10).
The modified device of US’035 does not teach wherein the porous member comprises: a retaining ring, the retaining ring comprising: an inlet mesh having a first porosity and disposed radially inward of the retaining ring; and an outlet mesh, having a second porosity, the outlet mesh disposed radially inward of the retaining ring and between the first mesh and the gas port; and a connection feature disposed on an interior of the housing; and the retaining ring, the inlet mesh, and the outlet mesh comprise the polymer material.
KR’849 teaches providing multiple mesh and porous bodies within a cleaning liquid supply pipe 181 for treating a substrate with a cleaning liquid. The size of the holes of the porous and mesh bodies decreases a position located on the side of the flow end relative to the direction in which the cleaning liquid flows. In the process, a large amount of the nano bubbles are generated inside the cleaning liquid, so that the nano bubbles can be discharged in a mixed state with the cleaning liquid. Using nano-bubbles according to the present invention, improves the cleaning efficiency for the substrate (page 2 and 5 and 8, see fig. 1-3). Therefore, the nozzle of US’035 can be modified based on the teachings of KR’849 to further control the gas-liquid mixing within the nozzle by providing an inlet mesh and an outlet mesh that can generate nano-bubbles to further assist in the improving cleaning efficiency. The modified method of US’035 teaches to construct the nozzle elements from a polymer material, as discussed above, and therefore, incorporating the teachings of KR’849 would further include constructing any parts of polymer. Additionally, KR’849 teaches an encloser for the nano-bubble device for retaining the porous bodies having an inlet and an outlet, and US’035 teaches that the liquid flows through a pipe, therefore the combination of KR’849 and US’035 would include an inlet mesh having a first porosity and disposed radially inward of the retaining ring; and an outlet mesh, having a second porosity, the outlet mesh disposed radially inward of the retaining ring and between the first mesh and the gas port.
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 modified apparatus of US’035 to include wherein the porous member comprises: a retaining ring, the retaining ring comprising: an inlet mesh having a first porosity and disposed radially inward of the retaining ring; and an outlet mesh, having a second porosity, the outlet mesh disposed radially inward of the retaining ring and between the first mesh and the gas port; and the retaining ring, the inlet mesh, and the outlet mesh comprise the polymer material because KR’849 teaches nanobubbles can improve the substrate cleaning efficiency and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
The modified device of US’035 does not teach a connection feature disposed on an interior of the housing.
US’849 teaches a two-fluid nozzle for cleaning substrates which mixes gas and liquid internally and injects liquid droplets with gas so as to clean a substrate (abstract). The nozzle is formed in segments that are separate parts joined by connection features/thread grooves (para. 56-58). Therefore, US’849 teaches that it is commonly known to for parts of a two-fluid nozzle as separate pieces and connected them by connection features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the modified apparatus of US’035 to include a connection feature disposed on an interior of the housing because US’849 teaches it is a commonly known configuration of a nozzle body and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (B).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of US’035 teaches the cleaning chamber of claim 3. The modified device of US’035 further teaches wherein the body, the gas port, the inlet mesh, and the outlet mesh are configured to aerate a cleaning fluid by pulling a gas through the gas port as the cleaning fluid passes from the fluid inlet to a fluid outlet (the nozzle of the modified device of US’036 is configured to generate bubbles and atomize the fluid with gas as the fluid passes through the nozzle structure, as discussed above)
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of US’035 teaches the cleaning chamber of claim 3. KR’849 further teaches wherein the first porosity is greater than second porosity (that size of the holes of the porous and mesh bodies decreases along a flow direction of the liquid, as discussed above, therefore the pore size of the inlet mesh is larger/higher then the pore size of the outlet mesh).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of US’035 teaches the cleaning chamber of claim 3. Since the modified device of US’035 includes all the structural limitations of claim 3 and therefore the inlet mesh, the outlet mesh and the gas port would be capable of performing the function of reduce a distance a cleaning fluid travels from a surface of a substrate by 30% or greater.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. US 2017/0170035 (US’035) in view of Emoto US 2016/0372320 (US’320).
Regarding claim 20, US’035 teaches a semiconductor substrate cleaning nozzle assembly (nozzle 3 located in cleaning chamber 27, para. 70-71 and 110-114, fig. 1 and 44-45), the cleaning nozzle assembly comprising:
a housing (nozzle 3 encloses structural components of the fluid and gas dispensing components, see fig. 2); and
a body disposed within the housing (gas pipe 2 and 5 for introducing cleaning gas and combining the gas with liquid is located within the structure of nozzle 3, see fig.7-8 and 26, para. 69-85) and having
a gas port disposed through the body and configured to aerate a fluid passing through the nozzle assembly (an atomized mixture of gas a liquid is sprayed from the cleaning medium outlet to perform an offline cleaning to the lower end of the atomized particle guiding outlet, para. 31, para. 103, wherein aerating is the introduction of air into a material, therefore the mixing the gas with liquid performed by the nozzle reads on aerate a fluid passing through the nozzle assembly).
US’035 is silent about the material of the nozzle and specifically the body comprising: a polymer material.
US’320 teaches a substrate processing method and apparatus (abstract). US’320 further teaches the material of a substrate processing nozzle can be made of a synthetic resin, such as PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), a polymer material, which has chemical resistance (para. 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’320 to include the body comprising: a polymer material because US’320 teaches it is a common chemically resistant material to constructed a substrate processing nozzle from and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713