DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0274415 by Kim in view of JP2002113429 by Sato in view of U.S. 2016/0111303 by Nakamori.
With regard to claim 2, Kim teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising a rotational holding part (comprising motor 349, shaft 348, body 342, supporting pins 344, and chuck pins 346) that holds and rotates the substrate, a cleaning nozzle 430 provided movably at an upper side of the held substrate such that the cleaning nozzle is reciprocated between a central part of the substrate and a peripheral part of the substrate while discharging a mist of a mixture of a cleaning liquid (provided via supply line 444) and N2 gas (provided via supply line 446), a liquid supply nozzle 420 that is integral with the cleaning nozzle 430 such that the liquid supply nozzle 420 reciprocates when the cleaning nozzle 430 reciprocates, and a controller 500 that controls the various nozzles during cleaning of a substrate, wherein the liquid supply nozzle discharges a first liquid (comprising a mixture of IPA and an alkali chemical) onto the substrate during the reciprocation of the liquid supply nozzle (Par. 0028-0052). In the apparatus of Kim, the fluid supply system (as illustrated in Figure 3) is considered to be structurally capable of supplying the cleaning liquid and the N2 independently because the controller is illustrated as separately controlling valves in lines 444 and 446 (Par. 0044). The controller is configured to execute discharging the first liquid from the liquid supply nozzle 420 (see Figure 5) to a central part of the substrate to form a liquid film of the first liquid on the substrate (Par. 0051). The controller is configured to execute discharging the cleaning liquid from the cleaning nozzle 430 to a central part of the substrate where a liquid film of the first liquid has been formed (Par. 0047 and 0051). The controller is configured to execute discharging the N2 at a flow rate from the cleaning nozzle 430 onto the substrate to discharge mist (this mist is a mixture of the cleaning liquid ejected from nozzle 430 and the N2 ejected from nozzle 430; Par. 0043, 0044, and 0051). The controller is configured to execute reciprocal, back-and-forth movement of the cleaning nozzle 430 and the liquid supply nozzle 420 from an upper side of a central part to an upper side of a peripheral part of the substrate while the nozzles eject their respective mist and first liquid (Par. 0051). The controller is configured to execute a step of discharging IPA from a nozzle 480 after the nozzles 420 and 430 perform their cleaning routine (Par. 0045 and 0052). The IPA ejected from nozzle 480 is different from the first liquid ejected from the liquid supply nozzle 420 (Par. 40 and 0045). The IPA ejected from nozzle 480 is ejected as part of a drying step, but that IPA can also be considered a rinsing liquid because that IPA also would be capable of rinsing remnant(s) from a surface of the substrate when employed in the drying of the substrate (Par. 0052).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the controller 500 also controls the rotational holding part. However, since Kim teaches that the rotational holding part is used to perform rotation of the substrate during the cleaning of the substrate (Par. 0036 and 0049), 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 apparatus of Kim such that the controller also controls the operating of the rotational holding part – the motivation for the modification being that such controller-based control would advantageously allow rotating of the substrate to be executed in an automated manner.
Kim does not teach that, as the cleaning nozzle moves from above a central part of the substrate to above a peripheral part of the substrate, the flow rate of the N2 gas is charged from a first flow rate to a second, higher flow rate.
Sato teaches that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness (Abstract; page 2 of translation). Sato teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center (page 8 of translation).
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 apparatus of Kim such that the controller is configured to vary the flow rate of the gas delivered to the cleaning nozzle 430 and such that, as the nozzles 420 and 430 are reciprocated (between being above a central portion of the substrate and being above a peripheral portion of the substrate), the cleaning nozzle 430 is a two-fluid nozzle that can use that varied gas flow rate to compensate (in order to prevent cleaning unevenness) for changes in cleaning time per unit area as the radial position of the cleaning nozzle changes, wherein the flow rate of the gas increases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center increases, and wherein the flow rate of the gas decreases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center decreases. Sato points out that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Sato, who teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center.
In the combination of Kim in view of Sato, the liquid supply nozzle 420 supplies the first liquid (which is a mixture of IPA and an alkali chemical) to the substrate to clean the substrate, and, later, a different nozzle 480 is used to supply IPA to the substrate. The combination of Kim in view of Sato does not teach that the liquid supply nozzle 420 is also used to supply the IPA of the drying step (this drying is discussed in Par. 0052 of Kim and, as discussed above, that IPA can also be considered a rinsing liquid).
Nakamori teaches that, instead of using different nozzle (such as nozzles 27 and 28 in Figure 2) to deliver a cleaning liquid (pure water from nozzle 27) and a drying liquid (from nozzle 28), a common nozzle could successfully be used to perform both steps (Par. 0047), wherein different liquids for the different steps are supplied from different sources to the common nozzle (Par. 0046-0050).
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 apparatus of Kim in view of Sato by having the same nozzle 420 used to supply the first liquid also used, later, to perform the step of supplying the IPA of the drying step (this drying step is discussed in Par. 0052 of Kim) to the substrate. In this combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori, a separate supply source for supplying the drying IPA to the nozzle 420 is connected to the nozzle 420. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Nakamori, who teaches that, instead of using different nozzle (such as nozzles 27 and 28 in Figure 2) to deliver a cleaning liquid (pure water from nozzle 27) and a drying liquid (from nozzle 28), a common nozzle could successfully be used to perform both steps (Par. 0047), wherein different liquids for the different steps are supplied from different sources to the common nozzle.
With regard to claim 6, in the combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0051 of Kim). The developed combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 492 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 492 to the substrate during the drying step of supplying IPA from the liquid supply nozzle 420.
The combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori does not teach that the liquid supply nozzle and cleaning nozzle are moving while the back surface nozzle 492 ejects its heating liquid during the drying step. However, Kim teaches that the liquid supply nozzle 420 can successfully supply liquid to the substrate while be reciprocated between the substrate center and the substrate periphery (Par. 0051 of Kim). 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 apparatus of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori such that the liquid supply nozzle 420 (which is integral with the cleaning nozzle 430) performs its drying discharge of IPA while being reciprocated between the substrate’s center and periphery – thus meaning that the heating (performed by the nozzle 492 occurs while the nozzles 420 and 430 are moving. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kim, who teaches that the liquid supply nozzle 420 can successfully supply liquid to the substrate while be reciprocated between the substrate center and the substrate periphery.
Claims 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0274415 by Kim in view of JP2002113429 by Sato in view of U.S. 2016/0111303 by Nakamori.
With regard to claim 11, Kim teaches a substrate processing method that uses an appartus comprising a rotational holding part (comprising motor 349, shaft 348, body 342, supporting pins 344, and chuck pins 346) that holds and rotates the substrate, a cleaning nozzle 430 provided movably at an upper side of the held substrate such that the cleaning nozzle is reciprocated between a central part of the substrate and a peripheral part of the substrate while discharging a mist of a mixture of a cleaning liquid (provided via supply line 444) and N2 gas (provided via supply line 446), a liquid supply nozzle 420 that is integral with the cleaning nozzle 430 such that the liquid supply nozzle 420 reciprocates when the cleaning nozzle 430 reciprocates, and a controller 500 that controls the various nozzles during cleaning of a substrate, wherein the liquid supply nozzle discharges a first liquid (comprising a mixture of IPA and an alkali chemical) onto the substrate during the reciprocation of the liquid supply nozzle (Par. 0028-0052). The controller is configured to execute discharging the first liquid from the liquid supply nozzle 420 (see Figure 5) to a central part of the substrate to form a liquid film of the first liquid on the substrate (Par. 0051). The controller is configured to execute discharging the cleaning liquid from the cleaning nozzle 430 to a central part of the substrate where a liquid film of the first liquid has been formed (Par. 0047 and 0051). The controller is configured to execute discharging the N2 at a flow rate from the cleaning nozzle 430 onto the substrate to discharge mist (this mist is a mixture of the cleaning liquid ejected from nozzle 430 and the N2 ejected from nozzle 430; Par. 0043, 0044, and 0051). The controller is configured to execute reciprocal, back-and-forth movement of the cleaning nozzle 430 and the liquid supply nozzle 420 from an upper side of a central part to an upper side of a peripheral part of the substrate while the nozzles eject their respective mist and first liquid (Par. 0051). The controller is configured to execute a step of discharging IPA from a nozzle 480 after the nozzles 420 and 430 perform their cleaning routine (Par. 0045 and 0052). The IPA ejected from nozzle 480 is different from the first liquid ejected from the liquid supply nozzle 420 (Par. 40 and 0045). The IPA ejected from nozzle 480 is ejected as part of a drying step, but that IPA can also be considered a rinsing liquid because that IPA also is capable of rinsing remnant(s) from a surface of the substrate when employed in the drying of the substrate (Par. 0052).
Kim does not teach that, as the cleaning nozzle moves from above a central part of the substrate to above a peripheral part of the substrate, the flow rate of the N2 gas is charged from a first flow rate to a second, higher flow rate.
Sato teaches that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness (Abstract; page 2 of translation). Sato teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center (page 8 of translation).
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 method of Kim such that the controller is configured to vary the flow rate of the gas delivered to the cleaning nozzle 430 and such that, as the nozzles 420 and 430 are reciprocated (between being above a central portion of the substrate and being above a peripheral portion of the substrate), the cleaning nozzle 430 is a two-fluid nozzle that can use that varied gas flow rate to compensate (in order to prevent cleaning unevenness) for changes in cleaning time per unit area as the radial position of the cleaning nozzle changes, wherein the flow rate of the gas increases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center increases, and wherein the flow rate of the gas decreases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center decreases. Sato points out that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Sato, who teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center.
In the combination of Kim in view of Sato, the liquid supply nozzle 420 supplies the first liquid (which is a mixture of IPA and an alkali chemical) to the substrate to clean the substrate, and, later, a different nozzle 480 is used to supply IPA to the substrate. The combination of Kim in view of Sato does not teach that the liquid supply nozzle 420 is also used to supply the IPA of the drying step (this drying is discussed in Par. 0052 of Kim and, as discussed above, that IPA can also be considered a rinsing liquid).
Nakamori teaches that, instead of using different nozzle (such as nozzles 27 and 28 in Figure 2) to deliver a cleaning liquid (pure water from nozzle 27) and a drying liquid (from nozzle 28), a common nozzle could successfully be used to perform both steps (Par. 0047), wherein different liquids for the different steps are supplied from different sources to the common nozzle (Par. 0046-0050).
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 method of Kim in view of Sato by having the same nozzle 420 used to supply the first liquid also used, later, to perform the step of supplying the IPA of the drying step (this drying step is discussed in Par. 0052 of Kim) to the substrate. In this combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori, a separate supply source for supplying the drying IPA to the nozzle 420 is connected to the nozzle 420. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Nakamori, who teaches that, instead of using different nozzle (such as nozzles 27 and 28 in Figure 2) to deliver a cleaning liquid (pure water from nozzle 27) and a drying liquid (from nozzle 28), a common nozzle could successfully be used to perform both steps (Par. 0047), wherein different liquids for the different steps are supplied from different sources to the common nozzle.
With regard to claim 15, in the method of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0051 of Kim). The developed method of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 16, in the combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 492 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 492 to the substrate during the drying step of supplying IPA from the liquid supply nozzle 420.
The combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori does not teach that the liquid supply nozzle and cleaning nozzle are moving while the back surface nozzle 492 ejects its heating liquid during the drying step. However, Kim teaches that the liquid supply nozzle 420 can successfully supply liquid to the substrate while be reciprocated between the substrate center and the substrate periphery (Par. 0051 of Kim). 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 method of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori such that the liquid supply nozzle 420 (which is integral with the cleaning nozzle 430) performs its drying discharge of IPA while being reciprocated between the substrate’s center and periphery – thus meaning that the heating (performed by the nozzle 492 occurs while the nozzles 420 and 430 are moving. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kim, who teaches that the liquid supply nozzle 420 can successfully supply liquid to the substrate while be reciprocated between the substrate center and the substrate periphery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, and 9 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter of claim 3. With regard to claim 3, the most relevant prior art is the combination of U.S. 2017/0274415 by Kim in view of JP2002113429 by Sato in view of U.S. 2016/0111303 by Nakamori used above to reject claim 2. The combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori does not teach that the controller is configured to first stop discharge of the gas and then stopping discharge of the cleaning liquid in the cleaning nozzle, after starting discharging the rinse liquid. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori to arrive at the apparatus recited by claim 3. Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 3.
Claims 12, 17, and 18 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not teach or render obvious the subject matter of claim 12. With regard to claim 12, the most relevant prior art is the combination of U.S. 2017/0274415 by Kim in view of JP2002113429 by Sato in view of U.S. 2016/0111303 by Nakamori used above to reject claim 11. The combination of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori does not teach first stopping discharge of the gas and then stopping discharge of the cleaning liquid in the cleaning nozzle after starting discharging the rinse liquid. The reviewed prior art does not provide motivation to modify the apparatus of Kim in view of Sato in view of Nakamori to arrive at the apparatus recited by claim 12. Claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights