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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yost et al. (US2019/0172731A1) in view of Suk et al. (KR20220154318A; machine translation).
Re claims 1 and 15-16, Yost et al. teach providing a nozzle (104, 304) above the wafer surface 108, the wafer supported within an interior of a chamber body (102, 110, paragraph 35), introducing a first scan fluid to (paragraphs 41-42) an inlet port 502 of the nozzle, directing a portion of the first scan fluid onto the wafer surface to permit interaction between contaminants on the wafer surface (paragraphs 32, 52, 56); removing the first scan fluid via the nozzle (paragraphs 35, 42); introducing a second scan fluid (paragraph 52) to the inlet port 502 of the nozzle, and removing the second scan fluid from the surface of the wafer (paragraphs 35, 42).
Yost et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the scan fluids comprising organic solvents and the removal of organic contaminants. Suk et al. teach that contaminants may exist in a variety of ways, which include organic and ionic contaminants on semiconductor devices (page 2). Suk et al. teach a contaminant analysis device comprising a substrate scanning unit providing an organic solvent to the substrate to clean organic contaminants on the substrate and an organic contaminant analyzer for analyzing the recovered organic solvent containing said organic contaminants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yost et al. to include scanning fluids comprising organic solvents, as taught by Suk et al., for purposes of cleaning, recovery and analysis of organic contaminants present on the wafer surface. Re claim 1, Yost et al. in view of Suk et al., do not specifically teach the removal of residual contaminants with the introduction of the second scan fluid. However, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect any scans after the first fluid scan, to remove any remaining residual contaminants present on the wafer surface. Specifically, each subsequent fluid scan serves as a rinse to remove any remaining residue present on the wafer surface.
Re claims 2-3, 5-6, and 17, Yost et al. in view of Suk et al. fail to teach whether the chemicals from each scan are the same or different. Paragraph 52 of Yost et al. teach that the chemicals can be drawn from different chemical sources, such as HF, peroxide, DI water and other fluids. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Yost et al., to include adjusting processing parameters, such as the type of chemicals used0 depending upon the type and amount of contaminants present on the wafer surface.
Re claim 4, the limitations are directed to performing a third scan. Paragraphs 35 and 42 teaches the introduction and removal of scanning fluids, which is suggestive of a plurality of scanning fluids, which would encompass performing a third scan. Additionally, paragraph 52 teaches additional fluid mixtures can be prepared on demand and introduced to the wafer as desired, which is suggestive of multiple fluid scans.
Re claim 7-9, 11-12, 18-19, Yost et al. in view of Suk et al. do not specifically teach replenishing the volume of the first scan fluid with a second portion of the first scan fluid, wherein the volume is an evaporated volume or the volume of the first scan fluid spread away from the control by the nozzle on the wafer surface. However, paragraph 42 teaches that the nozzle 304 comprises a nozzle channel 512 which permits a volume of fluid to travel over the wafer, wherein the volume of the channel can depend on the size of the wafer being processed by the system 100 to provide a desired amount of scanning fluid to the wafer surface 146. In summary, Yost et al. teach the volume of the fluid can be adjusted based on the wafer. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the volume of scanning fluid, to include replenishment, since Yost et al. teach that the volume of scanning fluid in the nozzle channel can be modified depending upon the wafer characteristics. In reference to the evaporated volume or the volume of the first scan fluid being spread away from the nozzle, the examiner argues that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect a level of evaporation of fluids and volume of the fluid spread away from the nozzle, as a result of rotation of the wafer (paragraph 56) during the scanning procedure. Furthermore, it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to replenish/adjust the volume of the scanning fluids during the scanning procedure, wherein the volume added is dependent upon the amount and type of contaminants present on the wafer surface. Re claim 10, the limitations are similar to that of claim 1, with the exception of the replenishment of the first scan fluid with a second portion of the first scan fluid, the limitations of which are previously addressed above. Re claims 13 and 20, the limitations are broadly read as a scan fluid having a reservoir and introducing the fluid via a pump to the nozzle. Applicant is directed to paragraph 42 which teaches a first pump which pushes fluids from a holding line (i.e. reservoir for example) into the nozzle 304. Applicant is also directed to paragraph 52 which teaches chemical sources, 620, 622, 624, which reads on reservoirs. The limitations of replenishment has been previously addressed above. Re claim 14, the limitations are directed to the processing parameters of the pump. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have adjusted the processing parameters, such as the flow rate at which the scanning fluid is being pumped, in order to effectively deliver the correct volume needed to a rotating wafer during the scanning procedure, to allow for sufficient interaction, removal and recovery of the contaminants by the fluids present on the wafer surface.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hohenwarter teaches treating disc shaped articles and closed chamber for wafer wet processing. Wen taches ion sampling system for wafers. Yost et al. and Marth teach decomposition and scanning of semiconductor wafers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc