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 Interpretation
Each of independent claims 1, 12 and 19 recite use of or presence of “an ABA module” which is variously described in the Specification in [0027], as a water treatment module that is operable for performing first and second advanced oxidation process treatment steps with an intervening bioremediation step, and in [0029] as including 1st and 2nd oxidation reactors in combination with an intervening biological reactor and additionally a settler.
Thus “ABA module” in claims 1, 12 and 19, and claims dependent therefrom is interpreted accordingly as a module which is operable for at least performing first and second advanced oxidation process treatment steps with an intervening bioremediation step.
Independent claim 19 recites structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitation of “the ABA module that performs an advanced oxidation process pretreatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and, an advanced oxidation process post-treatment step that is fed by the bioremediation step”.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device (as present in claim 19) nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
The following claim interpretations are herein also presented to clarify on the record the limitation(s) recited in each of the noted claims:
Independent claim 1 recites “A lithographic process, comprising the steps of “receiving a substrate having photoresist thereon; providing ultrapure water (UPW) to an immersion lithography tool; and exposing the photoresist using the immersion lithography tool”; and also recites: “wherein the ultrapure water is produced by a water treatment system which includes an ABA module that performs:
an advanced oxidation process (AOP) pre-treatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and
an advanced oxidation process post-treatment step that is fed by the bioremediation step.
It is noted that the process by which the recited “ultrapure water” is produced is not a process step of the recited “lithographic process” which comprises “receiving a substrate…”, “providing ultrapure water…” and “exposing the photoresist…”, such producing of the ultrapure water, as recited, not comprising a positively recited step, related to performing of a lithographic process of claim 1, as the claim is presently worded.
Thus, claim 1 is interpreted as positively only reciting: a “lithographic process, comprising the steps of “receiving a substrate having photoresist thereon; providing ultrapure water (UPW) to an immersion lithography tool; and exposing the photoresist using the immersion lithography tool”.
If applicants intend to positively recite the method step(s) of how the ultrapure water is produced, it is suggested that claim 1 be amended to recite: “A lithographic process…and producing the ultrapure water by a water treatment system…”.
In addition, in the following portion of claim 1: the claim recites structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitation of “the ABA module that performs an advanced oxidation process pretreatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and, an advanced oxidation process post-treatment step that is fed by the bioremediation step”.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device (as present in claim 1) nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim, or thus further limits utilization of apparatus recited as utilized in a process or method claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
In claim 1 as worded, the further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process.
Thus the specific process steps recited in dependent claims 2-11, respectfully, do not further limit the lithographic process of claim 1, as these further recite further components or substeps of the method steps of producing the ultrapure water, which do not constitute process steps of the lithographic process. Such process steps recite further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process.
Similarly, Independent claim 12 which recites: “A lithographic process, comprising the steps of “receiving a substrate having photoresist thereon; providing ultrapure water (UPW) to an immersion lithography tool; and exposing the photoresist using the immersion lithography tool”; and also recites: “wherein the ultrapure water is produced by a water treatment system which includes an ABA module that comprises:
a first oxidation reactor for performing an advanced oxidation process (AOP) pre-treatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and
a biological reactor that receives a feed from the first oxidation reactor”.
It is noted that the process by which the recited “ultrapure water” is produced is not a process step of the recited “lithographic process” which comprises “receiving a substrate…”, “providing ultrapure water…” and “exposing the photoresist…”, such producing of the ultrapure water, as recited, not comprising a positively recited step, related to performing of a lithographic process of claim 12, as the claim is presently worded.
Thus, claim 12 is also interpreted as positively only reciting: a “lithographic process, comprising the steps of “receiving a substrate having photoresist thereon; providing ultrapure water (UPW) to an immersion lithography tool; and exposing the photoresist using the immersion lithography tool”
If applicants intend to positively recite the method step(s) of how the ultrapure water is produced, it is suggested that claim 12 be amended to recite: “A lithographic process…and producing the ultrapure water by a water treatment system…”.
In addition, in the following portion of claim 12: the claim recites structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitation of “the ABA module…first oxidation reactor for performing an advanced oxidation process (AOP) treatment; and, a biological reactor that receives a feed from the first oxidation reactor”.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device (as present in claim 12) nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim, or thus further limits utilization of apparatus recited as utilized in a process or method claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (or in ” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural or positively recited limitations of the claim.”
In claim 12 as worded, the further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process.
Thus the specific process steps recited in dependent claims 13-18, respectfully, do not further limit the lithographic process of claim 12, as these further recite further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,221,371.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant system claims, 19 and 20 are encompassed in apparatus which is recited in method claims 1 and 8 of patent ‘371, as presented in the following side-by-side comparison of the instant claims with respect to the claims of patent ‘371, recitation of the apparatus or system components themselves being obvious from recitation of such apparatus or system components recited as utilized in corresponding method claims.
19. A water treatment system, comprising: an ABA module that performs:
an advanced oxidation process (AOP) pre-treatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and
an advanced oxidation process post-treatment step that is fed by the bioremediation step;
a resin adsorption unit downstream of the APA module;
a membrane degasification (MDG) unit downstream of the resin adsorption unit; and an ultrafiltration (UF) unit downstream of the MDG unit (all components of the ABA module above recited in claim 1 of ‘371).
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the resin adsorption unit is a 2-bed 3-tower (2B3T) unit, a stratified bed polisher (SBP) unit, or a cautionary polish (CP) unit (‘371, claim 8).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In each of independent claims 1 and 12, it is unclear whether the method steps or substeps regarding how the provided ultrapure water of claims 1 and 12 is produced are positively recited, method steps of the recited “lithographic process” which otherwise recites “receiving a substrate having photoresist thereon; providing ultrapure water to an immersion lithography tool; and exposing the photoresist using the immersion lithography tool”, in view of steps for producing ultrapure water by purifying feed water not corresponding to any structural feature or method step of performing a lithographic process.
As the process claims are worded, it is thus unclear whether the method steps for producing water form a part of a process for producing ultrapure water and then utilizing such ultrapure water in a lithographic process, or instead optionally constitute a process of producing ultrapure water, which is separate from the recited lithographic process.
In claim 4, “the oxidation reactor” lacks antecedent basis (changing claim dependency from claim 1 to claim 2 or 3 is suggested).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Thus the specific process steps recited in dependent 2-11 and claims 13-18, respectfully, do not further limit the lithographic process of claim 1 or claim 12, as these further recite further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parekh et al PGPUBS Document US 2009/0316119 (Parekh).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” and { } symbols.
For each of independent claims 1 and 12, Parekh discloses:
a lithographic process, comprising: receiving a substrate having photoresist thereon [0042-0044 including receiving a semiconductor substrate having photoresist applied thereto by an immersion liquid {0044}];
providing ultrapure water to an immersion lithography tool ([0043-0044 re a liquid immersion lithography system] and [0044-0045 the pure water being ultrapure water provided as liquid feed which may have been recirculated and purified after prior use in an immersion lithography system]); and
exposing the photoresist using the immersion lithography tool [0002 and 0043-0044 regarding exposing the photoresist with a laser light through a lens to create a finer geometry of semiconductor wafer that possible using other forms of lithography, applied with a laser-light applying light source-container tool having a lens or applying laser light through a lens, such as a mercury lamp]; and .
Claim 1 and claim 12 language regarding “wherein the ultrapure water is produced by a water treatment system which includes an ABA module that performs:
an advanced oxidation process (AOP) pre-treatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and
an advanced oxidation process post-treatment step that is fed by the bioremediation step” in independent claim 1, and
regarding “wherein the ultrapure water is produced by a water treatment system which includes an ABA module that comprises:
a first oxidation reactor for performing an advanced oxidation process (AOP) treatment; and
a biological reactor that receives a feed from the first oxidation reactor, in claim 12 are accorded little or no patentable weight in independent claim 12 have little patentable weight for reasons as follows.
In claims 1 and 12 as worded, the further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately or remotely from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process for which patent protection is being sought , nor are any specific water quality parameters of the ultrapure water utilized being claimed.
Optionally, Parekh also discloses the ultrapure water being provided by producing by a water treatment system which includes an oxidation process performed by oxidation degradation unit 20 or by one or more UV lamps [0045, 0048], and by additional water treatment process steps including degassing, ion exchange treatment, and microfiltration [0045-0046] to yield the ultrapure water.
Thus the specific process steps recited in dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18, respectfully, do not further limit the lithographic process of claims 1 and 12, respectfully, as these process steps recite further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process.
In addition, in the following portions of claims 1 and 12, respectfully: the claim recites structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitation of “the ABA module that performs an advanced oxidation process pretreatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and, an advanced oxidation process post-treatment step that is fed by the bioremediation step” , and in the following portion of claim 12: the claim recites structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language including recitation of “the ABA module…first oxidation reactor for performing an advanced oxidation process (AOP) treatment; and, a biological reactor that receives a feed from the first oxidation reactor”.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device (as present in claims 1 and 12) nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim, or thus further limits utilization of apparatus recited as utilized in a process or method claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
In claim 1 as worded, the further components or method sub-steps which are utilized in method steps of producing the ultrapure water, may optionally be performed entirely separately from any lithographic process in an unrelated process, and thus do not constitute positively recited process steps of the lithographic process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under Obviousness Double Patenting set forth in this Office action.
Independent claim 19 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of recitation of “A water treatment system, comprising: an ABA module that performs:
an advanced oxidation process (AOP) pre-treatment step that feeds a bioremediation step; and
an advanced oxidation process post-treatment step that is fed by the bioremediation step; in view of further recitation of the combination of:
a resin adsorption unit downstream of the APA module;
a membrane degasification (MDG) unit downstream of the resin adsorption unit; and an ultrafiltration (UF) unit downstream of the MDG unit.
Daigger et al patent 5,480,548 discloses an ABA system and process for treating wastewater containing large amounts of biodegradable waste matter and sludge by performing both a pre-oxidation and post-oxidation process and zone combining aerobic oxidation and biological treatment with an intermediate, anoxic bioremediation zone and process step in between the pre-oxidation and post-oxidation process and zone, however lacks the recited resin adsorption unit downstream of the APA module;
a membrane degasification (MDG) unit downstream of the resin adsorption unit; and an ultrafiltration (UF) unit downstream of the MDG unit.
Wenden PGPUBS publication US 2007/0084793, Parekh et al PGPUBS publication US 2009/0316119, CN publication 107935267a and Gokcay PGPUBS publication US 2012/0223012 teach processes of purifying water to produce ultrapure water for semiconductor fabrication or lithographic processes combining various combinations of oxidation, bioremediation, membrane reverse osmosis or other ultrafiltration treatment, degasification and ion exchange resin process systems or steps,
however do not reasonably provide motivation to be utilized in combination with the Daigger system or process, having an advanced oxidation pre-treatment step preceding bioremediation as well as an advanced oxidation post-treatment step since they are directed for different, specific industrial purposes than Daigger, and have radically different water treatment objectives for producing an ultrapure water, purified to a radically different degree of purification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , patent publication CN 200710110599A, and the accompanying English translation are directed to the general state of the art of exposing photoresist of a substrate in lithography with various lithography tools.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
08/20/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights