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 .
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
In claim 1 line 8, “a fluid passageway” should be “the fluid passageway.”
In claim 1 line 16, “a carrier gas” should be “the carrier gas.”
In claim 15 line 2, “the fluid passage branch” should be “the first fluid passage branch.”
In claim 16 line 15, “branch” should be “branches.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the controlling comprises controlling the carrier gas flows in the first gas passage branch continuously.” There is insufficient support for this limitation in both the specification of this application and the specification of the Parent Application No. 17/847,208. The current application discloses that the carrier gas may be supplied at a continuous flow (see specification at ¶ 0029), which is materially different from “controlling” continuously. Thus, Claim 5 contains new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 14, and 20 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.
Claim 4 recites “a pattern density” at line 2. It’s unclear what “pattern density” means, because the specification discloses both “a pattern density of the fluid previously sprayed onto to semiconductor device” and “a pattern density of structures already on the semiconductor device” in paragraph 0043. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “the carrier gas flows” at line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “a pattern density” at line 2. It’s unclear what “pattern density” means, because the specification discloses both “a pattern density of the fluid previously sprayed onto to semiconductor device” and “a pattern density of structures already on the semiconductor device” in paragraph 0043. Clarification is requested.
Claim 20 recites “a pattern density” at line 2. It’s unclear what “pattern density” means, because the specification discloses both “a pattern density of the fluid previously sprayed onto to semiconductor device” and “a pattern density of structures already on the semiconductor device” in paragraph 0043. Clarification is requested.
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 1-2, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM et al. (US PGPUB 20040020520).
Regarding Claim 1, KIM teaches a method for cleaning a semiconductor device (cleaning wafer W, see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0016-21, 0045, 0053-56, 0060-61, Figs. 1-2).
KIM’s method comprises providing a semiconductor cleaning apparatus (member 202 in chamber 200, see Figs. 1-5, ¶¶ 0046-48; see also annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KIM’s apparatus (e.g., member 202) comprises:
a first nozzle connected with a first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4), the first nozzle being configured to spray carrier gas (e.g., N2 gas) onto a substrate of a semiconductor device (line 272 supplies N2 gas to wafer W, see Figs. 4, 17-18, ¶¶ 0063, 0065, 0097);
a second nozzle connected with a second inlet (see id.), the second nozzle being configured to spray one or more fluids (cleaning solutions) onto the substrate of the semiconductor device (line 270 supplies the cleaning solutions to wafer W, see Figs. 4, 17-18, ¶¶ 0053, 0065, 0095).
KIM’s apparatus (e.g., member 202) further comprises:
a gas passageway (main passage 218 and passage branches 214) connected to the first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4), the gas passageway comprises a plurality of gas passage branches (branches 214) including a first gas passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4);
a fluid passageway (main passage 216 and passage branch 212) connected to the second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4), the fluid passageway comprises a plurality of fluid passage branches (branches 212) including a first fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4);
the second nozzle comprises a fluid passageway (main passage 216 and passage branch 212) connected to the second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4); and
the first gas passage branch being arranged neighboring the first fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
720
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KIM’s method comprises arranging the semiconductor device (wafer W) to be cleaned by the semiconductor cleaning apparatus (to be cleaned by member 202 in chamber 200, see Figs. 1-2, 17-18, ¶¶ 0045-49).
KIM’s method comprises providing the one or more fluids (cleaning solutions) to the semiconductor cleaning apparatus (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 17-18, ¶¶ 0093-95, 0100-03).
KIM’s method comprises providing a carrier gas (N2 gas) to the semiconductor cleaning apparatus (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 17-18, ¶¶ 0093-94, 0097, 0101, 0104).
KIM’s method comprises controlling spraying of the one or more fluids (spraying cleaning solutions onto wafer W, see, e.g., abstract, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0018-21, 0055-56, 0076-77; see also Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0099, 0106, controlling the valves) and the carrier gas (spraying N2 gas onto wafer W, see, e.g., abstract, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0017, 0061-65; see also Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0099, 0106, controlling the valves) onto the substrate of the semiconductor device (wafer W).
KIM teaches wherein the controlling includes controlling the carrier gas (as explained above) to cause the one or more fluids to be distributed on the semiconductor device. See ¶¶ 0013, 0120-22 (N2 gas applies a force onto the substrate, which means N2 gas dries the substrate in part by pushing a fluid remaining on the substrate). And because wafer W is rotated when N2 gas is supplied (see ¶¶ 0013, 0054, 0120-22, 0125), this means the one or more fluids are distributed non-linearly.
Regarding Claim 2, KIM teaches the method of claim 1. KIM teaches wherein the at least one gas passage branch comprises multiple gas passage branches 214 (as explained above) and the at least one fluid passage branch comprises multiple fluid passage branches 212 (as explained above), wherein the multiple gas passage branches and fluid passage branches are arranged in an array in an alternate fashion (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 9, KIM teaches a method (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0016-21, 0045, 0053-56, 0060-61, Figs. 1-2, treating wafer W).
KIM’s method comprises placing a semiconductor wafer (wafer W) in a chamber (chamber 200) during a semiconductor fabrication process (see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0045).
KIM’s method comprises providing a semiconductor cleaning apparatus (member 202, see Figs. 1-5, ¶¶ 0046-48; see also annotated Fig. 4 above), the apparatus comprising:
a first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive a carrier gas (line 272 supplies N2 gas, see Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0063, 0065, 0097);
a gas passageway (main passage 218 and passage branches 214) connected to the first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4), the gas passageway comprising a plurality of gas passage branches (branches 214) including a first gas passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive one or more fluids (line 270 supplies cleaning solutions, see Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0053, 0065, 0095); and
a fluid passageway (main passage 216 and passage branch 212) connected to the second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4), the fluid passageway comprising a plurality of fluid passage branches (branches 212) including a first fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4), the first gas passage branch arranged neighboring the first fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
KIM’s method comprises delivering the carrier gas (N2 gas) from the first inlet to the plurality of gas passage branches 214 through the gas passageway (see annotated Fig. 4 above; see also Fig. 2, ¶ 0061), and spraying the carrier gas onto the wafer (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0061).
KIM’s method comprises delivering the one or more fluids (cleaning solutions) from the second inlet to the plurality of fluid passage branches 212 through the fluid passageway (see annotated Fig. 4 above; see also Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0051, 0060) and spraying the one or more fluids onto the wafer (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0051, 0060).
Regarding Claim 10, KIM teaches the method of claim 9. KIM teaches wherein the semiconductor cleaning apparatus (member 202) further comprises: a first nozzle (see annotated Fig. 4 above) connected between the first inlet and the gas passageway (see id.); and a second nozzle (see id.) connected between the second inlet and the fluid passageway (see id.).
Regarding Claim 12, KIM teaches the method of claim 9. KIM teaches wherein the at least one gas passage branch comprises multiple gas passage branches 214 (as explained above) and the at least one fluid passage branch comprises multiple fluid passage branches 212 (as explained above), wherein the multiple gas passage branches and the multiple fluid passage branches are arranged in an array in an alternate fashion (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 13, KIM teaches the method of claim 9. KIM teaches wherein the at least one gas passage branch comprises multiple gas passage branches 214 (as explained above) and the at least one fluid passage branch comprises multiple fluid passage branches 212 (as explained above), wherein the multiple gas passage branches and the multiple fluid passage branches are arranged to form an interweaving pattern (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 16, KIM teaches a method (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0016-21, 0045, 0053-56, 0060-61, Figs. 1-2, treating wafer W).
KIM’s method comprises placing a semiconductor wafer (wafer W) in a chamber (chamber 200) during a semiconductor fabrication process (see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0045).
KIM’s method comprises providing a semiconductor cleaning apparatus (member 202, see Figs. 1-5, ¶¶ 0046-48; see also annotated Fig. 4 above), the apparatus comprising:
a first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive a carrier gas (line 272 supplies N2 gas, see Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0063, 0065, 0097);
a gas passageway (main passage 218 and passage branches 214) connected to the first inlet (see annotated Fig. 4), the gas passageway comprising a plurality of gas passage branches (branches 214) including a first gas passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4) configured to receive one or more fluids (line 270 supplies cleaning solutions, see Figs. 17-18, ¶¶ 0053, 0065, 0095); and
a fluid passageway (main passage 216 and passage branch 212) connected to the second inlet (see annotated Fig. 4), the fluid passageway comprising a plurality of fluid passage branches (branches 212) including a first fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4).
KIM’s method comprises delivering the carrier gas (N2 gas) from the first inlet to the plurality of gas passage branches 214 through the gas passageway (see annotated Fig. 4 above; see also Fig. 2, ¶ 0061), and spraying the carrier gas onto the wafer (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0061).
KIM’s method comprises delivering the one or more fluids (cleaning solutions) from the second inlet to the plurality of fluid passage branches 212 through the fluid passageway (see annotated Fig. 4 above; see also Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0051, 0060) and spraying the one or more fluids onto the wafer (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0051, 0060).
Regarding Claim 17, KIM teaches the method of claim 16. KIM teaches wherein the plurality of gas passage branches 214 and the plurality of fluid passage branches 212 are arranged in an array in an alternate fashion (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 18, KIM teaches the method of claim 16. KIM teaches wherein the plurality of gas passage branches 214 and the plurality of fluid passage branches 212 are arranged to form an interweaving pattern (see Figs. 3-4).
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.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (as applied to Claims 1 & 9), in view of LIU et al. (Chinese Publication CN114367488, as translated by Espacenet, hereinafter “LIU-488”).
Regarding Claim 3, KIM teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, KIM teaches a first nozzle, which comprises a plurality of gas passage branches 214 (see annotated Fig. 4 of KIM above).
KIM does not explicitly teach that the first nozzle includes “a first valve adjustable to cause a non-linear fluid distribution on the substrate of the semiconductor device.”
LIU-488 teaches a nozzle with a gas/fluid passageway for dispensing a gas/fluid (e.g., water, EKC solution, IPA, N2 gas, see ¶¶ 0016, 0018) onto a substrate. LIU-488 teaches that the gas/fluid passageway comprises a main passage and multiple elongated passage branches (see annotated Fig. 1 below). LIU-488 teaches that each elongated passage branch has its own valve 8 (see Fig. 1); wherein each valve is independently controllable (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042); wherein the valves are adjustable to cause a non-linear distribution of a gas/fluid on the substrate (see ¶ 0052, dispensing a gas/fluid on the substrate in a sequential manner from the substrate’s center to the substrate’s peripheral). This has the benefit of pushing contamination and residual fluid off the substrate to enhance cleaning (see ¶¶ 0028, 0055-56).
PNG
media_image3.png
447
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to incorporate a valve for each passage branch (i.e., for each gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate. First, by providing a valve for each passage branch, contamination/fluid can be pushed off the substrate to enhance cleaning; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a valve for each gas passage branch 214 and for each fluid passage branch 212. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for each passage branch to have its own valve (see LIU-488). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of KIM and LIU-488: the first gas passage branch of the first nozzle—through which the carrier gas (N2 gas) flows—would includes a first valve, which controls the distribution of the carrier gas. And because the carrier gas comes into contact with the fluids (e.g., cleaning solutions) dispensed on the substrate—as explained above, the N2 gas applies a force pushing away fluids on the substrate—the carrier gas also controls the fluid distribution on the substrate. In other words, the first valve is “adjustable to cause a non-linear fluid distribution on the substrate of the semiconductor device.”
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of KIM and LIU-488 teaches the method of claim 3. As explained above, the first nozzle includes an independently controllable first valve that controls the distribution of the carrier gas; this means that “a carrier gas distribution is adjustable based on a pattern density on the substrate of the semiconductor device.”
Regarding Claim 15, KIM teaches the method of claim 9. As explained above, KIM teaches a first gas passage branch and a first fluid passage branch (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
KIM does not explicitly teach: wherein the first gas passage branch comprises a first valve and the fluid passage branch comprises a second valve, wherein the first valve is controllable independent from the second valve.
LIU-488 teaches a nozzle with a gas/fluid passageway for dispensing a gas/fluid (e.g., water, EKC solution, IPA, N2 gas, see ¶¶ 0016, 0018) onto a substrate. LIU-488 teaches that the gas/fluid passageway comprises a main passage and multiple elongated passage branches (see annotated Fig. 1 above). LIU-488 teaches that each elongated passage branch has its own valve 8 (see Fig. 1); wherein each valve is independently controllable (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0042); wherein the valves are adjustable to cause a non-linear distribution of a gas/fluid on the substrate (see ¶ 0052, dispensing a gas/fluid on the substrate in a sequential manner from the substrate’s center to the substrate’s peripheral). This has the benefit of pushing contamination and residual fluid off the substrate to enhance cleaning (see ¶¶ 0028, 0055-56).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to incorporate a valve for each passage branch (i.e., for each gas passage branch 214 of KIM and for each fluid passage branch 212 of KIM), wherein each valve is independently controllable, with reasonable expectation of causing a non-linear distribution of gas/fluid on the substrate.
In the resulting combination of KIM and LIU-488: the first gas passage branch would comprise a first valve and the first fluid passage branch would comprise a second valve, wherein the first valve is controllable independent from the second valve.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (as applied to Claim 1), in view of PURI et al. (US PGPUB 20020011253).
Regarding Claim 6, KIM teaches the method of claim 1. KIM teaches wherein the controlling comprises controlling a temperature of the carrier gas in the first gas passage branch (see ¶ 0120, N2 gas can be approximately 40℃). Also, the one or more fluids in the first fluid passage branch inherently has a temperature.
KIM does not explicitly teach that a temperature of the carrier gas is “at least 10% higher or lower than” a temperature of the one or more fluids in the first fluid passage branch. But it’s already known in the prior art to supply a fluid in a temperature range of between 20℃ and 85℃ (see PURI at ¶¶ 0042, 0044, 0063).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to supply the one or more fluids at a temperature range of between 20℃ and 85℃, with reasonable expectation of treating the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art to supply a fluid in a temperature range of between 20℃ and 85℃ (see PURI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of KIM and PURI: the one or more fluids would be supplied in a temperature range of between 20℃ and 85℃. This means that, when the fluid temperature is closer towards 20℃, a temperature of the carrier gas (e.g., 40℃) would be at least 10% higher than a temperature of the one or more fluids in the first fluid passage branch, and when the fluid temperature is closer towards 85℃, a temperature of the carrier gas (e.g., 40℃) would be at least 10% lower than a temperature of the one or more fluids in the first fluid passage branch.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (as applied to Claim 1), in view of CHEN et al. (US PGPUB 20040216770).
Regarding Claim 7, KIM teaches the method of claim 1. KIM teaches wherein the controlling comprises controlling a temperature of the carrier gas in the first gas passage branch (see ¶ 0120, N2 gas can be approximately 40℃). Also, the one or more fluids in the first fluid passage branch inherently has a temperature.
KIM does not explicitly teach that a temperature of the carrier gas is “less than 10% higher or lower than” a temperature of the one or more fluids in the first fluid passage branch. But it’s already known in the prior art that both the fluid and the carrier gas can be supplied at about 40℃ (see CHEN at ¶ 0023), which falls within the recited range of “less than 10% higher or lower than.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to supply the one or more fluids at about 40℃, with reasonable expectation of treating the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art to supply both the fluid and the carrier gas at about 40℃ (see CHEN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of KIM and CHEN: both the fluid and the carrier gas would be supplied at about 40℃, i.e., a temperature of the carrier gas in the first gas passage branch would be less than 10% higher or lower than a temperature of the one or more fluids in the first fluid passage branch.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (as applied to Claim 1), in view of MORIKAWA (US PGPUB 20200365425).
Regarding Claim 8, KIM teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, KIM teaches controlling spraying of the one or more fluids.
KIM does not explicitly teach that the controlling is “based on a thickness of the semiconductor device.” But it’s already known in the art to control the spraying of fluid(s) based on a thickness of the semiconductor device (see MORIKAWA at ¶ 0059, flow rate is set based on a pattern height), which has the benefit of suppressing pattern collapse (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to control the spraying of the one or more fluids based on a thickness of the semiconductor device, with reasonable expectation of treating the substrate. By controlling the spraying of fluids based on a thickness of the semiconductor device, it’s possible to suppressing pattern collapse; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to perform said controlling “based on a thickness of the semiconductor device.” Also, it’s already known in the prior art to control the spraying of fluid(s) based on a thickness of the semiconductor device (see MORIKAWA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (as applied to Claims 10 and 16), in view of SON et al. (US PGPUB 20230314951).
Regarding Claim 11, KIM teaches the method of claim 10. KIM teaches a first nozzle and a second nozzle (see annotated Fig. 4 above), wherein the first nozzle comprises a check valve 276 and the second nozzle comprises a check valve 274 (see id.).
KIM does not explicitly teach that the first nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a first flow rate of the carrier gas” and the second nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to use a check valve to control the flow rate of a fluid flowing through the check valve. See SON at ¶¶ 0089-90. Using the check valve can achieve precise control of the flow rate (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to use the check valve in each nozzle to control flow rate, with reasonable expectation of controlling flow. First, using the check valve can achieve precise control of the flow rate (see SON); given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to use KIM’s check valve 276 to precisely control the flow rate of carrier gas flowing through the first nozzle and KIM’s check valve 274 to precisely control the flow rate of fluid(s) flowing through the second nozzle. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to use a check valve to control the flow rate of a fluid flowing through the check valve (see SON). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of KIM and SON: KIM’s check valve 276 (in the first nozzle) would be used to control a first flow rate of the carrier gas (e.g., N2 gas), and KIM’s check valve 274 (in the second nozzle) would be used to control a second flow rate of the one or more fluids (e.g., cleaning solutions). Thus, the combination of KIM and SON teaches: “controlling, by the first nozzle, a first flow rate of the carrier gas; and controlling, by the second nozzle, a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
Regarding Claim 19, KIM teaches the method of claim 16. KIM teaches a first nozzle and a second nozzle (see annotated Fig. 4 above), wherein the first nozzle comprises a check valve 276 and the second nozzle comprises a check valve 274 (see id.).
KIM does not explicitly teach that the first nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a first flow rate of the carrier gas” and the second nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to use a check valve to control the flow rate of a fluid flowing through the check valve. See SON at ¶¶ 0089-90. Using the check valve can achieve precise control of the flow rate (see id.).
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to use the check valve in each nozzle to control flow rate, with reasonable expectation of controlling flow, and the resulting combination of KIM and SON teaches: “controlling, by the first nozzle, a first flow rate of the carrier gas; and controlling, by the second nozzle, a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (as applied to Claims 10 and 16), in view of YOSHIMIZU et al. (US PGPUB 20200185221).
Regarding Claim 11, KIM teaches the method of claim 10. KIM teaches a first nozzle and a second nozzle (see annotated Fig. 4 above), wherein the first nozzle comprises a check valve 276 and the second nozzle comprises a check valve 274 (see id.).
KIM does not explicitly teach that the first nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a first flow rate of the carrier gas” and the second nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to control the opening and closing of check valves, and to control the opening degrees of check valves. See YOSHIMIZU at ¶ 0068.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to control the opening/closing and the opening degree of KIM’s check valves, with reasonable expectation of controlling flow. It’s already known in the prior art to control the opening and closing of check valves, and to control the opening degrees of check valves (see YOSHIMIZU). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of KIM and YOSHIMIZU: the opening/closing and the opening degree of KIM’s check valve 276 (in the first nozzle) would be controlled, which in turn controls a first flow rate of the carrier gas (e.g., N2 gas); similarly, the opening/closing and the opening degree of KIM’s check valve 274 (in the second nozzle) would be controlled, which in turn controls a second flow rate of the one or more fluids (e.g., cleaning solutions). Thus, the combination teaches: “controlling, by the first nozzle, a first flow rate of the carrier gas; and controlling, by the second nozzle, a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
Regarding Claim 19, KIM teaches the method of claim 16. KIM teaches a first nozzle and a second nozzle (see annotated Fig. 4 above), wherein the first nozzle comprises a check valve 276 and the second nozzle comprises a check valve 274 (see id.).
KIM does not explicitly teach that the first nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a first flow rate of the carrier gas” and the second nozzle is used for “controlling . . . a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to control the opening and closing of check valves, and to control the opening degrees of check valves. See YOSHIMIZU at ¶ 0068.
As explained above, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify KIM to control the opening/closing and the opening degree of KIM’s check valves, with reasonable expectation of controlling flow, and the resulting combination of KIM and YOSHIMIZU teaches: “controlling, by the first nozzle, a first flow rate of the carrier gas; and controlling, by the second nozzle, a second flow rate of the one or more fluids.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claims 14 and 20. The most relevant prior art is KIM et al. (US PGPUB 20040020520), as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach a method with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in the claim, wherein such combination includes, inter alia: “adjusting distribution of the carrier gas based on a pattern density on the semiconductor wafer.”
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art of record does not teach a method with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in the claim, wherein such combination includes, inter alia: “adjusting distribution of the carrier gas based on a pattern density on the semiconductor wafer.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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 on (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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714