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.
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 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0128994 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2019/0371599 by Yoshida.
With regard to claim 1, Kaneko teaches a method of removing contaminant particles from a substrate with a pattern formed on the top surface of the substrate (Abstract; Par. 0034 and 0074-0090). Kaneko’s method comprises supplying a “topcoat” solution (reads on treating liquid) onto a rotating substrate, wherein the topcoat solution is a mixture of polymer and solvent (Par. 0034-0037 and 0078-0080). Kaneko teaches that this supplying of topcoat solution forms a liquid film of the topcoat solution on the patterned substrate (Par. 0034-0037 and 0078-0080; see Figure 1A). After the liquid film of the topcoat solution is formed on top of the substrate, the rotation of the substrate is stopped for a period of time, and the while the substrate is not rotated, the solvent of the topcoat solution is allowed to evaporate such that the remaining polymer of the topcoat solution solidifies into a solid film that entraps to-be-removed contaminants on the patterned substrate (Par. 0082-0084; entrapped contaminants are illustrated as items “P” in Figure 1B). In the method of Kaneko, after the solidification step, a “stripping” liquid is supplied to the solid film while the substrate is again rotated such that the “stripping” liquid spreads across the solid film and the solid film (and its entrapped contaminants) is stripped from the substrate (Par. 0085 and 0086; see Figure 1C). In the method of Kaneko, after the “stripping” step, a “dissolving-processing liquid” is supplied to the substrate such that the stripped solid film is dissolved (Par. 0087). After the dissolving step, a rinsing step is performed with water and then a drying step is performed (Par. 0089 and 0090).
In the method of Kaneko, the stopping (see Par. 0084) of the substrate for a period of time (a first period of time) while the solvent of the topcoat solution evaporates and the polymer of the topcoat solution solidifies corresponds to applicant’s first period. Kaneko’s method, as developed thus far, does not recite that the solidifying of the polymer also comprises a second period of rotating the substrate at a second speed – greater than zero rpms – for a second time period. However, Kaneko does not teach that stopping the rotation of the substrate is the only effective way to allow the solvent to evaporate from the topcoat solution during the solidifying; Kaneko also teaches that rotation of the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is also an effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification occurs. Since Kaneko teaches that rotating the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is another effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs, 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 Kaneko by performing two steps of allowing the topcoat solution solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs – comprising a first step wherein rotation of the substrate is stopped for a first time period and a second step of rotating the substrate for a second time period at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer. Motivation for performing both techniques for allowing solvent evaporation to occur while solidification occurs was provided by the fact that Kaneko that both techniques (one technique being the stopping of rotation for a period of time discussed in Par. 0084, and the other technique being the rotation “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) are effective and it thus would have been predictable that employing both techniques in series would also be effective. MPEP 2143 discusses that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” can be a rationale for asserting that a modification would be prima facie obvious. Motivation for performing the stopping-of-rotation technique before performing the rotation technique (“at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) was provided by the fact that there are two techniques to perform in series and since one of the two techniques has to be performed before the other, the limited number of options (one option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique first and the other option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique second) available would mean that performing the stopping-of-rotation technique first can be considered prima facie obvious.
In the developed method of Kaneko, the substrate is rotated while the topcoat solution is supplied to the substrate, and the substrate is later rotated during the second period of the solvent evaporation and polymer solidification. However, the developed method of Kaneko doesn’t specify that the rotation during the second period is at a second speed that is equal to or greater than a rotating speed of the substrate during the suppling of the topcoat solution.
Yoshida teaches that when supplying a film-forming liquid to a patterned, rotating substrate in order to later form a solid film from the film-forming liquid in order to entrap particles (items 110 in Figure 8A) in the solid film such that the particles can be stripped away with the solid film (Par. 0209-0222), the film-forming liquid can be supplied to the rotating substrate while the substrate rotates slowly, wherein the slow rotation of the substrate has the effect of allowing the film-forming liquid to reach the bottoms of the pattern (Par. 0214 and 0215).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 Kaneko by optimizing the speed at which the substrate rotates during the step of supplying the topcoat solution to the patterned surface of the substrate. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by the fact that the rotation speed can be considered result-effective variable, as Yoshida teaches that a slow enough rotation speed advantageously allows a film-forming liquid to reach the bottoms of a substrate pattern (Par. 0214 and 0215 of Yoshida) and Kaneko teaches that the rotation speed must be sufficient such that the centrifugal force allows the topcoat solution to spread across the rotating substrate and form a film of topcoat solution liquid (Par. 0079 of Kaneko).
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches supplying DIW (deionized water) onto the substrate as the “stripping” liquid (reads on peeling liquid) after the solid film is formed, wherein the “stripping” liquids peels the solid film (Par. 0085 and 0086 of Kaneko).
With regard to claims 3 and 4, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches supplying a liquid comprising isopropyl alcohol (IPA; reads on organic solvent of claim 3) onto the substrate after the solid film is formed (Par. 0085, 0086, 0112, and 0128 of Kaneko).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches drying the substrate by rotating the substrate after the solid film is formed (Par. 0084 and 0090 of Kaneko).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches that the solidifying of the liquid film comprises having the surface of the liquid film located higher than patterns formed on the substrate (0079-0085 and Figures 1A and 1B of Kaneko).
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida, the forming of the solid film is considered to comprise a time when the liquid film of topcoat solution is flat because the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches not rotating the substrate for a first time period while the liquid film of topcoat solution is on the substrate, and therefore, one would reasonably expect the topcoat solution to fatten out (due to gravity and the liquid nature of the topcoat solution) during the stopping of the substrate rotation.
If this “one would reasonably expect” argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: figures 1A and 1B of Kaneko illustrate the topcoat solution layer as flat in Figure 1A and the resulting solid film as flat in Figure 1B, and therefore, 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 Kaneko in view of Yoshida by having the topcoat solution be flat during the solidifying step because Kaneko’s Figures 1A and 1B seem to suggest as much.
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0128994 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2019/0371599 by Yoshida.
With regard to claim 8, Kaneko teaches a method of removing contaminant particles from a substrate with a pattern formed on the top surface of the substrate (Abstract; Par. 0034 and 0074-0090). Kaneko’s method comprises supplying a “topcoat” solution (reads on treating liquid) onto a rotating substrate, wherein the topcoat solution is a mixture of polymer and solvent (Par. 0034-0037 and 0078-0080). Kaneko teaches that this supplying of topcoat solution forms a liquid film of the topcoat solution on the patterned substrate (Par. 0034-0037 and 0078-0080; see Figure 1A). After the liquid film of the topcoat solution is formed on top of the substrate, the rotation of the substrate is stopped for a period of time, and the while the substrate is not rotated, the solvent of the topcoat solution is allowed to evaporate such that the remaining polymer of the topcoat solution solidifies into a solid film that entraps to-be-removed contaminants on the patterned substrate (Par. 0082-0084; entrapped contaminants are illustrated as items “P” in Figure 1B). In the method of Kaneko, after the solidification step, a “stripping” liquid is supplied to the solid film while the substrate is again rotated such that the “stripping” liquid spreads across the solid film and the solid film (and its entrapped contaminants) is stripped from the substrate (Par. 0085 and 0086; see Figure 1C). In the method of Kaneko, after the “stripping” step, a “dissolving-processing liquid” is supplied to the substrate such that the stripped solid film is dissolved (Par. 0087). After the dissolving step, a rinsing step is performed with water and then a drying step is performed (Par. 0089 and 0090).
In the method of Kaneko, the stopping (see Par. 0084) of the substrate for a period of time (a first period of time) while the solvent of the topcoat solution evaporates and the polymer of the topcoat solution solidifies corresponds to applicant’s first time period. Kaneko’s method, as developed thus far, does not recite that the solidifying of the polymer also comprises rotating the substrate at a second speed after the stopping of the substrate rotation for the first period of time. However, Kaneko does not teach that stopping the rotation of the substrate is the only effective way to allow the solvent to evaporate from the topcoat solution during the solidifying; Kaneko also teaches that rotation of the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is also an effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification occurs. Since Kaneko teaches that rotating the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is another effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs, 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 Kaneko by performing two steps of allowing the topcoat solution solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs – comprising a first step wherein rotation of the substrate is stopped for a first time period and a second step of rotating the substrate for a second time period at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer. Motivation for performing both techniques for allowing solvent evaporation to occur while solidification occurs was provided by the fact that Kaneko that both techniques (one technique being the stopping of rotation for a period of time discussed in Par. 0084, and the other technique being the rotation “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) are effective and it thus would have been predictable that employing both techniques in series would also be effective. MPEP 2143 discusses that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” can be a rationale for asserting that a modification would be prima facie obvious. Motivation for performing the stopping-of-rotation technique before performing the rotation technique (“at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) was provided by the fact that there are two techniques to perform in series and since one of the two techniques has to be performed before the other, the limited number of options (one option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique first and the other option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique second) available would mean that performing the stopping-of-rotation technique first can be considered prima facie obvious.
In the developed method of Kaneko, the substrate is rotated while the topcoat solution is supplied to the substrate, and the substrate is later rotated during the second time period of the solvent evaporation and polymer solidification. However, the developed method of Kaneko doesn’t specify that the rotation during the second period is at a second speed that is equal to or greater than a rotating speed of the substrate during the suppling of the topcoat solution.
Yoshida teaches that when supplying a film-forming liquid to a patterned, rotating substrate in order to later form a solid film from the film-forming liquid in order to entrap particles (items 110 in Figure 8A) in the solid film such that the particles can be stripped away with the solid film (Par. 0209-0222), the film-forming liquid can be supplied to the rotating substrate while the substrate rotates slowly, wherein the slow rotation of the substrate has the effect of allowing the film-forming liquid to reach the bottoms of the pattern (Par. 0214 and 0215).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 Kaneko by optimizing the speed at which the substrate rotates during the step of supplying the topcoat solution to the patterned surface of the substrate. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by the fact that the rotation speed can be considered a result-effective variable, as Yoshida teaches that a slow enough rotation speed advantageously allows a film-forming liquid to reach the bottoms of a substrate pattern (Par. 0214 and 0215 of Yoshida) and Kaneko teaches that the rotation speed must be sufficient such that the centrifugal force allows the topcoat solution to spread across the rotating substrate and form a film of topcoat solution liquid (Par. 0079 of Kaneko).
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida does not specify the length of the first time period or the second time period. However, the purpose of the rotating of the substrate during the second time period is to allow the solvent of the topcoat solution to evaporate such that the polymer of the topcoat solution can successfully form its solid film. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 Kaneko in view of Yoshida by optimizing the duration of the second time period. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by the fact that the second time period can be considered a result-effective variable, as the length of this time period affects whether the rotating is performed long enough to successfully evaporate solvent of the topcoat solution such that the polymer of the topcoat solution can solidify, and if the length of the second time period is unnecessarily long, then time is being wasted.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches supplying DIW (deionized water) onto the substrate as the “stripping” liquid after the solid film is formed (Par. 0085 and 0086 of Kaneko).
With regard to claims 12 and 13, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches supplying a liquid comprising isopropyl alcohol (IPA; reads on organic solvent of claim 12) onto the substrate after the solid film is formed (Par. 0085, 0086, 0112, and 0128 of Kaneko).
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches supplying DIW (deionized water) onto the substrate after the solidification of the film (Par. 0089 of Kaneko). The combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches supplying a liquid comprising isopropyl alcohol (IPA; reads on organic solvent) onto the substrate after the solid film is formed (Par. 0085, 0086, 0112, and 0128 of Kaneko).
Claims 15, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0128994 by Kaneko in view of U.S. 2019/0371599 by Yoshida.
With regard to claim 15, Kaneko teaches a method of removing contaminant particles from a substrate with a pattern formed on the top surface of the substrate (Abstract; Par. 0034 and 0074-0090). Kaneko’s method comprises supplying a “topcoat” solution (reads on treating liquid) onto a rotating substrate, wherein the topcoat solution is a mixture of polymer and solvent (Par. 0034-0037 and 0078-0080). Kaneko teaches that this supplying of topcoat solution forms a liquid film of the topcoat solution on the patterned substrate (Par. 0034-0037 and 0078-0080; see Figure 1A). After the liquid film of the topcoat solution is formed on top of the substrate and the supplying of topcoat solution is stopped, the rotation of the substrate is stopped for a period of time, and the while the substrate is not rotated, the solvent of the topcoat solution is allowed to evaporate such that the remaining polymer of the topcoat solution solidifies into a solid film that entraps to-be-removed contaminants on the patterned substrate (Par. 0082-0084; entrapped contaminants are illustrated as items “P” in Figure 1B). Kaneko teaches that the solidifying of the liquid film comprises having the surface of the liquid film located higher than patterns formed on the substrate (0079-0085 and Figures 1A and 1B of Kaneko). In the method of Kaneko, after the solidification step, a “stripping” liquid is supplied to the solid film while the substrate is again rotated such that the “stripping” liquid spreads across the solid film and the solid film (and its entrapped contaminants) is stripped from the substrate (Par. 0085 and 0086; see Figure 1C). In the method of Kaneko, after the “stripping” step, a “dissolving-processing liquid” is supplied to the substrate such that the stripped solid film is dissolved (Par. 0087). After the dissolving step, a rinsing step is performed with water and then a drying step is performed (Par. 0089 and 0090).
In the method of Kaneko, the stopping (see Par. 0084) of the substrate for a period of time (a first period of time) while the solvent of the topcoat solution evaporates and the polymer of the topcoat solution solidifies corresponds to applicant’s first time period. Kaneko’s method, as developed thus far, does not recite that the solidifying of the polymer also comprises rotating the substrate at a second speed after the stopping of the substrate rotation for the first period of time. However, Kaneko does not teach that stopping the rotation of the substrate is the only effective way to allow the solvent to evaporate from the topcoat solution during the solidifying; Kaneko also teaches that rotation of the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is also an effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification occurs. Since Kaneko teaches that rotating the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is another effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs, 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 Kaneko by performing two steps of allowing the topcoat solution solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs – comprising a first step wherein rotation of the substrate is stopped for a first time period and a second step of rotating the substrate for a second time period at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer. Motivation for performing both techniques for allowing solvent evaporation to occur while solidification occurs was provided by the fact that Kaneko that both techniques (one technique being the stopping of rotation for a period of time discussed in Par. 0084, and the other technique being the rotation “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) are effective and it thus would have been predictable that employing both techniques in series would also be effective. MPEP 2143 discusses that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” can be a rationale for asserting that a modification would be prima facie obvious. Motivation for performing the stopping-of-rotation technique before performing the rotation technique (“at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) was provided by the fact that there are two techniques to perform in series and since one of the two techniques has to be performed before the other, the limited number of options (one option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique first and the other option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique second) available would mean that performing the stopping-of-rotation technique first can be considered prima facie obvious.
In the developed method of Kaneko, the substrate is rotated while the topcoat solution is supplied to the substrate, and the substrate is later rotated during the second time period of the solvent evaporation and polymer solidification. However, the developed method of Kaneko doesn’t specify that the rotation during the second period is at a second speed that is equal to or greater than a rotating speed of the substrate during the suppling of the topcoat solution.
Yoshida teaches that when supplying a film-forming liquid to a patterned, rotating substrate in order to later form a solid film from the film-forming liquid in order to entrap particles (items 110 in Figure 8A) in the solid film such that the particles can be stripped away with the solid film (Par. 0209-0222), the film-forming liquid can be supplied to the rotating substrate while the substrate rotates slowly, wherein the slow rotation of the substrate has the effect of allowing the film-forming liquid to reach the bottoms of the pattern (Par. 0214 and 0215).
In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 Kaneko by optimizing the speed at which the substrate rotates during the step of supplying the topcoat solution to the patterned surface of the substrate. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by the fact that the rotation speed can be considered a result-effective variable, as Yoshida teaches that a slow enough rotation speed advantageously allows a film-forming liquid to reach the bottoms of a substrate pattern (Par. 0214 and 0215 of Yoshida) and Kaneko teaches that the rotation speed must be sufficient such that the centrifugal force allows the topcoat solution to spread across the rotating substrate and form a film of topcoat solution liquid (Par. 0079 of Kaneko).
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida does not specify the length of the first time period or the second time period. However, the purpose of the rotating of the substrate during the second time period is to allow the solvent of the topcoat solution to evaporate such that the polymer of the topcoat solution can successfully form its solid film. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 Kaneko in view of Yoshida by optimizing the duration of the second time period. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by the fact that the second time period can be considered a result-effective variable, as the length of this time period affects whether the rotating is performed long enough to successfully evaporate solvent of the topcoat solution such that the polymer of the topcoat solution can solidify, and if the length of the second time period is unnecessarily long, then time is being wasted.
With regard to claim 20, in the method of Kaneko in view of Yoshida, the forming of the solid film is considered to comprise a time when the liquid film of topcoat solution is flat because the combination of Kaneko in view of Yoshida teaches not rotating the substrate for a first time period while the liquid film of topcoat solution is on the substrate, and therefore, one would reasonably expect the topcoat solution to fatten out (due to gravity and the liquid nature of the topcoat solution) during the stopping of the substrate rotation.
If this “one would reasonably expect” argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: figures 1A and 1B of Kaneko illustrate the topcoat solution layer as flat in Figure 1A and the resulting solid film as flat in Figure 1B, and therefore, 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 Kaneko in view of Yoshida by having the topcoat solution be flat during the solidifying step because Kaneko’s Figures 1A and 1B seem to suggest as much.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
In particular, without conceding as to any of the Examiner’s assertions that are not specifically addressed herein, Applicants note that Kaneko (U.S. 2015/0128994) describes, only in the alternative, “stopping the rotation of the wafer” OR “rotating the wafer at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off” (paragraph [0084]). The two techniques are connected by “or” and offered as mutually exclusive alternatives. Accordingly, Kaneko does not disclose or suggest performing them sequentially in combination.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Applicant is correct to say that Kaneko does not disclose performing the “stopping the rotation of the wafer” vaporization technique and the “rotating the wafer at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off” vaporization technique sequentially in combination. However, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 explains how it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform those two disclosed vaporization techniques in series with predictable results. The relevant chunk of the rejection of claim 1 is reproduced below:
In the method of Kaneko, the stopping (see Par. 0084) of the substrate for a period of time (a first period of time) while the solvent of the topcoat solution evaporates and the polymer of the topcoat solution solidifies corresponds to applicant’s first period. Kaneko’s method, as developed thus far, does not recite that the solidifying of the polymer also comprises a second period of rotating the substrate at a second speed – greater than zero rpms – for a second time period. However, Kaneko does not teach that stopping the rotation of the substrate is the only effective way to allow the solvent to evaporate from the topcoat solution during the solidifying; Kaneko also teaches that rotation of the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is also an effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification occurs. Since Kaneko teaches that rotating the substrate “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” (Par. 0084) is another effective way of allowing the solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs, 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 Kaneko by performing two steps of allowing the topcoat solution solvent to evaporate while solidification of the polymer occurs – comprising a first step wherein rotation of the substrate is stopped for a first time period and a second step of rotating the substrate for a second time period at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer. Motivation for performing both techniques for allowing solvent evaporation to occur while solidification occurs was provided by the fact that Kaneko that both techniques (one technique being the stopping of rotation for a period of time discussed in Par. 0084, and the other technique being the rotation “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) are effective and it thus would have been predictable that employing both techniques in series would also be effective. MPEP 2143 discusses that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” can be a rationale for asserting that a modification would be prima facie obvious. Motivation for performing the stopping-of-rotation technique before performing the rotation technique (“at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) was provided by the fact that there are two techniques to perform in series and since one of the two techniques has to be performed before the other, the limited number of options (one option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique first and the other option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique second) available would mean that performing the stopping-of-rotation technique first can be considered prima facie obvious.
As discussed above in the reproduced portion of the rejection of claim 1, motivation for performing both techniques for allowing solvent evaporation to occur while solidification occurs was provided by the fact that Kaneko teaches that both techniques (one technique being the stopping of rotation for a period of time discussed in Par. 0084, and the other technique being the rotation “at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) are effective and it thus would have been predictable that employing both techniques in series would also be effective. MPEP 2143 discusses that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” can be a rationale for asserting that a modification would be prima facie obvious.
On page 8 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
By contrast, Applicants assert that Kaneko fails to teach the features of the amended claims relating to the solidifying step which has a two-stage structure: the substrate is first stopped so that the treating liquid penetrates into the patterns, and is thereafter rotated to proceed with solidification. Applicants note that stopping alone results in slow solvent volatilization and a long solidification time. Rotation alone causes the treating liquid to be scattered out of the patterns by rotational force, so that penetration into the patterns is not sufficiently achieved (see Specification).
Accordingly, Applicants asserts that Kaneko fails to teach the features of the amended claims which requires the stopping period to precede the rotating period: penetration of the treating liquid into the patterns is secured during the stopping period, and the solvent is then volatilized during the rotating period to complete solidification. Because the alternatives in Kaneko are presented as a choice between one or the other, neither the sequential combination nor the resulting benefit is taught or suggested, and therefore Applicants assert that the Examiner’s reliance on the “limited number of options” rationale is not appropriate.
This line of argument is not persuasive. Simply put, Kaneko teaches two techniques (the “stopping the rotation” technique of Par. [0084] and the “rotating…at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off” technique of Par. [0084]) for volatilizing the volatile component, and there is no inventive spark in looking at these two different techniques and deciding to use them both in series. MPEP 2143 discusses that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” can be a rationale for asserting that a modification would be prima facie obvious. Kaneko teaches two vaporization techniques, and, in the examiner’s opinion, there is no inventive spark in deciding to use those two vaporization techniques in series to achieve vaporization of the volatile component. In the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the results of modifying Kaneko in the manner described are predictable: the two volatilization techniques – used in series – will result in volatilization of the volatile component. Applicant describes their technique as beneficial – namely, their two-step volatilization technique avoids the slowness of the performing rotation-stopping-based volatilization only and allows for deeper pattern penetration by the treating liquid. However, that supposed benefit does not mean that there is any inventive spark in taking two successful vaporization techniques expressly disclosed by Kaneko and simply performing them both in series.
The examiner does not agree that his reliance on the “limited number of options” rationale is inappropriate. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, motivation for performing the stopping-of-rotation technique before performing the rotation technique (“at a rotation rate that will not cause the topcoat solution to spin off and expose the substrate of the wafer” discussed in Par. 0084) was provided by the fact that there are two techniques to perform in series and since one of the two techniques has to be performed before the other, the limited number of options (one option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique first and the other option being to perform the stopping-of-rotation technique second) available would mean that performing the stopping-of-rotation technique first can be considered prima facie obvious. Since there are two vaporization techniques being performed, the number of options is very limited – either one vaporization technique is performed first or the other is performed first. In the examiner’s opinion, this is an appropriate instance of relying on the “limited number of options” rationale.
The above discussion has centered on claim 1. Applicant’s claims 8 and 15 are similar to claim 1. Applicant repeats their arguments regarding claim 1 for claims 8 and 15. The examiner’s answers to such repeated arguments are likewise repeated for claims 8 and 15, mutatis mutandis.
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