DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election
Applicant's election of Invention I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant appears to traverse the restriction on the ground that the two inventions are no longer independent. This is not persuasive because the two inventions are still distinct (see MPEP § 802.01), which is not addressed by Applicant’s arguments. As explained in the 10/31/2025 Restriction Requirement at ¶ 3, the claimed method can be practiced manually (i.e., without a controller) and the claimed apparatus can be used to practice a method of air-drying the substrate or a method of cleaning the guards.
Therefore, the restriction is still deemed proper and it’s made FINAL.
Non-elected Claims 11 & 21-29 are withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 08/18/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese Application No. JP2023-133486 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objection
In claim 5 line 4, “of washing away” should be changed to “washing away” by deleting the word “of”.
In claim 6 line 4, “of washing away” should be changed to “washing away” by deleting the word “of”.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 2 recites two conflicting limitations:
Switching from first guard to second guard “in supplying the first rinse liquid to the substrate” (as recited in Claim 1 lines 13-14);
Switching from first guard to second guard “in holding the liquid film of the first rinse liquid on the substrate” (as recited in Claim 2 lines 5-6).
During the “holding the liquid film” step—also called “paddling” step (see originally filed claim 2, specification at ¶¶ 0162-64, Figs. 9A-9B)—the first rinse liquid is merely present on the substrate but not actively supplied to the substrate (see specification at ¶¶ 0162-64, 0168, Figs. 9A-9B; see also ¶¶ 0007, 0017, 0164, 0180, switching guards during the paddling step). Therefore, Claim 2 requires switching the guards both while supplying the first rinse liquid and while not supplying the first rinse liquid. Given this contradiction, Claim 2 fails to meet the written description requirement.
The specification discloses two alternative embodiments. In one embodiment, the guards are switched during the paddling step (see ¶¶ 0007, 0017, 0164, 0180), i.e., while the first rinse liquid is present on the substrate but not actively supplied (see ¶¶ 0162-64, 0168, Figs. 9A-9B). In another embodiment, the paddling step is omitted (see ¶ 0219), and the guards are switched while the first rinse liquid is being actively supplied to the substrate (see id.). Claim 2 combines two incompatible embodiments, in violation of the written description requirement.
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 1-10 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 1 recites: “in supplying the first rinse liquid to the substrate, a guard surrounding the substrate is switched from the first guard to a second guard.” It’s unclear whether or not the first rinse liquid is being actively supplied to the substrate when switching the guards. The specification discloses two alternative embodiments, so it’s unclear which embodiment is being recited in Claim 1. Clarification is requested.
In a first embodiment, the guards are switched during the paddling step (see ¶¶ 0007, 0017, 0164, 0180 of specification), i.e., while the first rinse liquid is present on the substrate but not actively supplied to the substrate (see id. at ¶¶ 0162-64, 0168, Figs. 9A-9B). In a second embodiment, the paddling step is omitted (see id. at ¶ 0219), and the guards are switched while the first rinse liquid is being actively supplied to the substrate (see id.).
If Applicant intends Claim 1 to recite the first embodiment (i.e., there is a paddling step), then the claim language must be amended to clarify that the guards are switched while the first rinse liquid is merely present on the substrate, but not actively supplied to the substrate. If Applicant intends Claim 1 to recite the second embodiment (i.e., there is no paddling step), then the conflict between Claims 1 and 2 needs to be resolved.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted as follows: the guard is switched from first guard to second guard while the first rinse liquid is still present on the substrate, i.e., either the first rinse liquid is being actively supplied to the substrate or the first rinse liquid had previously been supplied to the substrate.
Claim 2 recites “in holding the liquid film of the first rinse liquid on the substrate, the guard surrounding the substrate is switched from the first guard to the second guard” at lines 5-6. As explained above, it’s unclear whether or not the first rinse liquid is being actively supplied to the substrate when switching the guards, and which embodiment—out of two alternative embodiments—is being recited. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “the rotation speed” at line 5. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, it’s unclear which rotation is being referred, because Claim 1 already recites multiple instances of rotating (see lines 11, 16, 18 of claim 1).
Claim 6 recites “the rotation speed” at line 5. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, it’s unclear which rotation is being referred, because Claim 1 already recites multiple instances of rotating (see lines 11, 16, 18 of claim 1).
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGUCHI et a. (WIPO Publication WO2020044862A1, as translated by Espacenet), in view of ITO (US PGPUB 20140261172).
Regarding Claim 1, YAMAGUCHI teaches a substrate processing method of processing a substrate (see Figs. 6-7, ¶¶ 0107-08, 0118) having a pattern including a recess portion (see, e.g., Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0008, 0017, 0022, 0068, 0070, 0075-76, 0122, 0128, 0133-35).
YAMAGUCHI teaches the substrate processing method comprising:
supplying a first chemical liquid (an acidic liquid such as diluted hydrofluoric acid or “DHF”) to the substrate (see step S231 in Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0129-31);
supplying a first rinse liquid (e.g., deionized water or “DIW”) to the substrate (see step S232 in Fig. 7, ¶ 0132);
rotating the substrate in a state in which supply of the first rinse liquid is stopped, and discharging the first rinse liquid from the recess portion, and removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate (see step S24 in Fig. 7, ¶¶ 0133-34);
supplying a second chemical liquid (an alkaline liquid such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide or “TMAH”) to the substrate from which the first rinse liquid has been removed (see step S25 in Fig. 7; see also ¶¶ 0123-24, 0128, 0134).
YAMAGUCHI teaches that in supplying the first chemical liquid (step S231) to the substrate, the first chemical liquid (e.g., DHF) is supplied to the substrate while the substrate is rotating (see ¶ 0130).
YAMAGUCHI teaches that in removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate (step S24), the first rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) is discharged from the substrate that is rotating (see ¶¶ 0133-34, DIW is spun off the substrate).
YAMAGUCHI teaches that in supplying the second chemical liquid to the substrate (step S25), the second chemical liquid (e.g., TMAH) is supplied to the substrate while the substrate is rotating (see ¶ 0123).
YAMAGUCHI teaches a plurality of guards surrounding the substrate (see annotated Fig. 6 below). It’s well understood in the substrate-processing art that such guards are commonly used to collect and recover the various liquids spun off the substrate. See also ITO at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0020, 0022.
PNG
media_image1.png
341
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach that:
in supplying the first chemical liquid (step S231), “the first chemical liquid discharged from the substrate is received by a first guard”;
in supplying the first rinse liquid (step S232), “a guard surrounding the substrate is switched from the first guard to a second guard”;
in removing the first rinse liquid (step S24), the first rinse liquid discharged from the rotating substrate “is received by the second guard”;
in supplying the second chemical liquid (step S25), “the second chemical liquid discharged from the substrate that is rotating is received by the second guard.”
ITO teaches a substrate processing method of processing a substrate (see ¶¶ 0029-39) with a plurality of liquids, including a first chemical liquid (an acidic liquid, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0023), a first rinse liquid (DIW, see id.), and a second chemical liquid (an alkaline liquid, see id.). ITO also teaches a plurality of guards (e.g., cups 32, 32, 33) surrounding the substrate for collecting those liquids as they spun off the substrate (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0020, 0022).
ITO teaches that in supplying the first chemical liquid (e.g., an acidic liquid) to the substrate (see ¶¶ 0030-34), the first chemical liquid is supplied to the substrate while the substrate is rotating (see ¶ 0031), and the first chemical liquid discharged from the substrate is received by a first guard (received by first cup 31, see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0031-33). The first chemical liquid flows into drain port 313 to be recovered (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0022, 0033).
ITO teaches that in supplying the first rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) to the substrate (see ¶¶ 0035-36), a guard surrounding the substrate is switched from the first guard to a second guard (see ¶ 0038, changing from first cup 31 to second cup 32).
ITO teaches in supplying the second chemical liquid (e.g., an alkaline liquid) to the substrate (see ¶¶ 0037-39), the second chemical liquid is supplied to the substrate while the substrate is rotating (see ¶ 0038), and the second chemical liquid discharged from the substrate that is rotating is received by the second guard (received by second cup 32, see ¶¶ 0038-39). The second chemical liquid flows into drain port 323 to be recovered (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0022, 0039).
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 YAMAGUCHI to incorporate using the first guard to receive the first chemical liquid (e.g., an acidic liquid) discharged from the substrate, using the second guard to receive the second chemical liquid (e.g., an alkaline liquid) discharged from the substrate, and switching the guards in supplying the first rinse liquid, with reasonable expectation of recovering the various liquids.
First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by using different guards to receive the first chemical liquid (e.g., an acid liquid) and the second chemical liquid (e.g., an alkaline liquid) discharged from the substrate, the two chemical liquids do not mix together to neutralize each other, thereby preserving each chemical liquid for reuse. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to use a first guard to receive the first chemical liquid and a second guard to receive the second chemical liquid.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art to supply a first chemical liquid (e.g., an acidic liquid), then a first rinse liquid (e.g., DIW), and then a second chemical liquid (e.g., an alkaline liquid) to the substrate (see YAMAGUCHI; see ITO); wherein a plurality of guards surround the substrate (see YAMAGUCHI; see ITO); wherein the first guard is used to receive the first chemical liquid discharged from the substrate (see ITO), the second guard is used to receive the second chemical liquid (see id.), and the guards are switched in supplying the first rinse liquid (see id.). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those elements 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 Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO: in supplying the first chemical liquid (e.g., an acidic liquid such as DHF) to the substrate, the first chemical liquid discharged from the rotating substrate is received by a first guard (see annotated Fig. 6 of YAMAGUCHI above); in supplying the first rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) to the substrate, a guard surrounding the substrate is switched from the first guard to a second guard (see annotated Fig. 6 of YAMAGUCHI); and in supplying the second chemical liquid (e.g., an alkaline liquid such as TMAH) to the substrate, the second chemical liquid discharged from the rotating substrate is received by the second guard (see annotated Fig. 6 of YAMAGUCHI). Moreover, because the guards are switched—from first guard to second guard—in the step of supplying the first rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) to the substrate, this means that in the subsequent step of removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate, the first rinse liquid discharged from the rotating substrate would be received by the second guard.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches that, in removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate (step S24 of YAMAGUCHI) and in supplying the second chemical liquid to the substrate (step S25 of YAMAGUCHI), the first rinse liquid and the second chemical liquid are received by the second guard. As explained above, the guards are used to collect and recover the various liquids spun off the substrate (see also ITO at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0020, 0022); this means the first rinse liquid and the second chemical liquid received by the second guard would be recovered.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the pattern includes a multi-layer laminated structure in which a polysilicon layer (polysilicon films P1 to PN of YAMAGUCHI) and a silicon oxide layer (silicon oxide films O1 to ON of YAMAGUCHI) are alternately laminated (see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0068-69).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 7. The combination teaches: the recess portion is hollowed in a lamination direction (direction Dt, see Fig. 4 of YAMAGUCHI) that is a direction in which the polysilicon layer and the silicon oxide layer are alternately laminated (see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0068-69); and supplying the second chemical liquid (an alkaline liquid such as TMAH) to the substrate includes etching the polysilicon layer and forming a dent on an inner surface of the recess portion (see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 4C, ¶ 0073).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches the first chemical liquid includes an acidic chemical liquid (e.g., DHF), and the second chemical liquid includes an alkaline chemical liquid (e.g., TMAH).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO, as applied to Claim 1, in view of ENDO et al. (US PGPUB 20190295839).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches: supplying the first rinse liquid to the substrate (step S232 of YAMAGUCHI) includes supplying the first rinse liquid to the substrate that is rotating; and in the supplying the first rinse liquid, a guard surrounding the substrate is switched from the first guard to a second guard.
The combination does not explicitly teach: the supplying the first rinse liquid to the substrate includes “holding a liquid film of the first rinse liquid on the substrate”; and the guard is switched “in holding the liquid film of the first rinse liquid on the substrate.”
ENDO teaches that, when switching guards, it’s ideal to reduce/stop the flow rate of a liquid supplied to the substrate, and/or slow down the rotational speed of the substrate (see ¶¶ 0147-50, Figs. 6B-6C). This feature provides the benefit of reducing contamination by reducing the speed or amount of liquid scattered from the substrate’s peripheral edge (see id.). Moreover, by reducing/stopping flow rate and/or slowing down rotational speed, the liquid is being held as a liquid film on the substrate (see Figs. 6B-6C).
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 the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO to incorporate holding a liquid film of the first rinse liquid on the substrate in the step of supplying the first rinse liquid (step S232 of YAMAGUCHI)—wherein holding the liquid film is achieved by reducing/stopping flow rate of the rinse liquid and/or slowing down the substrate’s rotational speed—and perform the guard-switching process in said holding the liquid film, with reasonable expectation of reducing contamination.
First, by holding a liquid film—which is achieved by reducing/stopping flow rate of the liquid and/or slowing down the substrate’s rotation—when switching the guard, it’s possible to reduce contamination (see ENDO). Given this benefit, one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to hold a liquid film of the first rinse liquid in the step of supplying the first rinse liquid (step S232 of YAMAGUCHI) and switch the guard in said holding the liquid film.
Second, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO already teaches switching the guard in supplying the first rinse liquid to the substrate, and it’s already known in the prior art to switch guard when holding a liquid film of the liquid supplied to the substrate (see ENDO). 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 YAMAGUCHI, ITO, and ENDO: the step of supplying the first rinse liquid to the substrate would include holding a liquid film of the first rinse liquid on the substrate, and in said holding the liquid film, the guard surrounding the substrate would be switched from the first guard to the second guard.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO, as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of HANAWA et al. (US PGPUB 20160074913) and NISHIDE et al. (US PGPUB 20190091640).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches that:
in removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate (step S24 of YAMAGUCHI), the substrate is rotated (see ¶¶ 0133-34 of YAMAGUCHI), i.e., the substrate inherently has a rotation speed in removing the first rinse liquid;
in supplying the second chemical liquid to the substrate (step S25 of YAMAGUCHI), the second chemical liquid is supplied to the substrate while the substrate is rotating (see ¶ 0123 of YAMAGUCHI), i.e., the substrate inherently has a rotation speed when the supplying of the second chemical liquid to the substrate is started.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the two rotation speeds are equal, i.e., the substrate’s rotation speed in removing the first rinse liquid is equal to the substrate’s rotation speed when the supplying of the second chemical liquid is started.
But it’s already known in the prior art to rotate the substrate at 800 RPM—a rotational speed disclosed by the present application (see specification at ¶¶ 0166, 0172)—for removing a rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) from the substrate and for starting the supply of a chemical liquid (e.g., TMAH) to the substrate. For example, HANAWA teaches rotating the substrate at a rotation speed of 800 RPM to remove a rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) from the substrate (see ¶ 0209). As another example, NISHIDE teaches rotating the substrate at a rotation speed of 800 RPM when the supplying of a chemical liquid (e.g., TMAH) is started (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0219-20).
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 the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO to rotate the substrate at 800 RPM in removing the first rinse liquid and when the supplying of the second chemical liquid to the substrate is started, with reasonable expectation of treating the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art to rotate the substrate at 800 RPM for removing a rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) from the substrate (see HANAWA) and for starting the supply of a chemical liquid (e.g., TMAH) to the substrate (see NISHIDE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined those claimed elements 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 YAMAGUCHI, ITO, HANAWA, and NISHIDE: the substrate’s rotation speed (i.e., 800 RPM) in removing the first rinse liquid (step S24 of YAMAGUCHI) would be equal to the substrate’s rotation speed (i.e., 800 RPM) when the supplying of the second chemical liquid is started (step S25 of YAMAGUCHI).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO, as applied to Claim 1, in further view of GAST (US PGPUB 20060219258) and SEIKE et al. (US PGPUB 20200248076).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination teaches supplying a second rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) to the substrate that is rotating and washing away the second chemical liquid from the substrate (see step S26 in Fig. 7, ¶ 0124 of YAMAGUCHI).
The combination teaches drying the substrate (see step S27 in Fig. 7, ¶ 0125 of YAMAGUCHI) to remove the second rinse liquid. In other words, the combination teaches two drying steps: a first drying step (step S24 of YAMAGUCHI) in which the substrate is rotated to remove the first rinse liquid from the substrate (this corresponds to the claimed step of “removing the first rinse liquid”); a second drying step (step S27 of YAMAGUCHI) in which the substrate is rotated to remove the second rinse liquid from the substrate (this corresponds to the claimed step of “drying the substrate”). The second drying step is also the final drying step before the rotation of the substrate is stopped and the substrate is unloaded from the processing apparatus (see YAMAGUCHI at ¶¶ 0125-27).
The combination teaches that, in removing the first rinse liquid (YAMAGUCHI’s step S24), IPA vapor and N2 gas are supplied to the substrate (see YAMAGUCHI at ¶ 0133).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “increasing the rotation speed of the substrate” and “wherein in removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate, the substrate is rotated at a lower rotation speed than a rotation speed at which the substrate is rotated in the drying the substrate.”
But these features are already known in the prior art. GAST teaches that, to remove a rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) from a substrate, the substrate may be rotated at 500 RPM (see ¶ 0058), especially when IPA vapor and N2 gas are also supplied to the substrate to enhance drying (see Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0043, 0052, IPA gas delivered with N2 gas). SEIKE teaches a step of drying the substrate (step S7 in Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0099-100)—which is the final drying step before the rotation of the substrate is stopped and the substrate is unloaded from the processing apparatus (see Fig. 6) —that comprises increasing the rotation speed of the substrate and drying the substrate (see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0099-100). SEIKE teaches that, in this drying step, the substrate is rotated at “several thousand rpm” (¶ 0100).
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 the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO such that (1) the second drying step comprises increasing the rotation speed of the substrate and (2) the substrate is rotated at 500 RPM in the first drying step and at “several thousand rpm” in the second drying step, with reasonable expectation of drying the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art for the final drying step (i.e., before rotation is stopped and the substrate is unloaded) to comprise increasing the rotation speed of the substrate (see SEIKE) and rotate at “several thousand rpm” (see id.). It’s also known in the prior art to rotate the substrate at 500 RPM to remove a rinse liquid, especially when IPA vapor and N2 gas are also supplied to the substrate (see GAST). 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 YAMAGUCHI, ITO, GAST, and SEIKE: the substrate would be rotated at 500 RPM in the first drying step (step S24 of YAMAGUCHI) and at “several thousand rpm” in the second drying step (step S27 of YAMAGUCHI), i.e., “in removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate, the substrate is rotated at a lower rotation speed than a rotation speed at which the substrate is rotated in the drying the substrate.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO, as applied to Claim 1, in further view of SEIKE et al. (US PGPUB 20200248076) and MATSUSHIMA et al. (US PGPUB 20220013633).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination teaches supplying a second rinse liquid (e.g., DIW) to the substrate that is rotating and washing away the second chemical liquid from the substrate (see step S26 in Fig. 7, ¶ 0124 of YAMAGUCHI).
The combination teaches drying the substrate (see step S27 in Fig. 7, ¶ 0125 of YAMAGUCHI) to remove the second rinse liquid. In other words, the combination teaches two drying steps: a first drying step (step S24 of YAMAGUCHI) in which the substrate is rotated to remove the first rinse liquid from the substrate (this corresponds to the claimed step of “removing the first rinse liquid”); a second drying step (step S27 of YAMAGUCHI) in which the substrate is rotated to remove the second rinse liquid from the substrate (this corresponds to the claimed step of “drying the substrate”). The second drying step is also the final drying step before the rotation of the substrate is stopped and the substrate is unloaded from the processing apparatus (see YAMAGUCHI at ¶¶ 0125-27).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “increasing the rotation speed of the substrate” and “wherein a length of time of removing the first rinse liquid from the substrate is shorter than a length of time of drying the substrate.”
But these features are already known in the prior art. SEIKE teaches a step of drying the substrate (step S7 in Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0099-100)—which is the final drying step before the rotation of the substrate is stopped and the substrate is unloaded from the processing apparatus (see Fig. 6) —that comprises increasing the rotation speed of the substrate and drying the substrate (see Fig. 6, ¶¶ 0099-100). MATSUSHIMA teaches a substrate processing method that comprises a first drying step and a second drying step (see Fig. 8B, ¶¶ 0172-74), wherein a length of time for the first drying step is shorter than a length of time for the second drying step (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 the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO such that (1) the second drying step (YAMAGUCHI’s step S27) includes increasing the rotation speed of the substrate and (2) a length of time for the first drying step (YAMAGUCHI’s step S24) is shorter than a length of time for the second drying step (YAMAGUCHI’s step S27), with reasonable expectation of drying the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art for the final drying step (i.e., before rotation is stopped and the substrate is unloaded) to comprise increasing the rotation speed of the substrate (see SEIKE). It’s also known in the prior art for the first drying step to have a shorter length of time than that of the second drying step (see MATSUSHIMA). 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO, as applied to Claim 7, in view of LEE (US Patent 9184060).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO teaches the method according to claim 7. As explained above, the combination teaches a laminated structure having multiple layers (see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0068-69).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach the number of layers is “eighty or more,” this is already known in the prior art. For example, a stack may include at least 40 pairs of alternating layers of silicon oxide and polysilicon. See LEE at col. 13 lines 12-24.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the method as taught by the combination of YAMAGUCHI and ITO to treat a substrate having a laminated structure of eighty or more layers, with reasonable expectation of processing the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art to process a substrate having a laminated structure of alternating layers of silicon oxide and polysilicon (see YAMAGUCHI), wherein the number of layers may be eighty or more (see LEE). 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.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Switching guards in supplying the rinse liquid:
AIURA et al. (US PGPUB 20140137902) teaches switching guards in supplying the rinse liquid (see ¶ 0040).
MIYAZAKI et al. (Japanese Publication JP2002059067A, as translated by Espacenet) teaches switching guards in supplying the rinse liquid (see ¶¶ 0055-56).
Rotate substrate at 800 RPM to remove liquid and to supply liquid
AKIYAMA et al. (US PGPUB 20210299712) teaches rotating the substrate at 800 RPM while supplying a hydrophilizing liquid (¶¶ 0276, 0516); a rinse liquid (¶¶ 0281, 0315, 0425, 0483, 0522); a peeling liquid (¶¶ 0309, 0357, 0418); and a dissolving liquid (¶ 0478).
YEH et al. (US PGPUB20130034966) teaches rotating the substrate at 800 RPM when starting the supply of an etching liquid for etching polysilicon (see ¶¶ 0020-21, 0040-41).
OKUTANI et al. (US PGPUB 20170282210) teaches rotating the substrate at 800 RPM to remove (i.e., spin off) an organic solvent from the substrate (see ¶ 0147).
NODA et al. (US PGPUB 20240426024) teaches rotating the substrate at 800 RPM to remove (i.e., spin off) a rinse liquid from the substrate (see ¶¶ 0122, 0176).
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 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714