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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/22/26 has been entered.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcasi et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0269177; hereafter ‘177).
Claim 1: ’177 is directed towards sensor integration into a coating track (title) comprising an edge bead removal (EBR) method (abstract & ¶ 52) comprising:
an operation of setting an X-axis coordinate and a Y-axis coordinate of an initial position of the edge bead removal nozzle, the X-axis coordinate having a non-zero value and the initial position being at a second position different from the first position (the EBR dispense nozzle has an initial position and the angle and position can be adjusted throughout the process, ¶ 56; see also ¶ 52-56; though ‘177 does not explicitly recite the claim language it does read on setting an initial value for both (X,Y) wherein X is non-zero and the second position different from the first position because any vector movement can be defined as in (x,y) coordinate system and it is arbitrary what the initial orientation is chosen such that a movement along the vector can have non-zero values of x & y);
an operation of moving the edge bead removal nozzle in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction across a surface of the substrate to move the edge bead removal nozzle from the first position to the initial position (the EBR dispense nozzle has an initial position and the angle and position can be adjusted throughout the process, ¶ 56; see also ¶ 52-56; though ‘177 does not explicitly recite the claim language it does read on setting an initial value for both (X,Y) wherein X is non-zero and the second position different from the first position because any vector movement can be defined as in (x,y) coordinate system and it is arbitrary what the initial orientation is chosen such that a movement along the vector can have non-zero values of x & y);
an operation of positioning, on an edge of a substrate, an edge bead removal nozzle supplying a removal liquid to remove a film formed on the substrate (see Figs. 3 & 7A-7C, abstract, and ¶s 52-56);
an operation of rotating the substrate while discharging the removal liquid from the edge bead removal nozzle (see ¶s 52-56).
‘177 does not teach the number of times the EBR nozzle is repositioned and thus does not explicitly teach “an operation of adjusting a region from which the film is removed by changing a value of the Y-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position, such that an angle formed by a tangent line contacting an edge of the substrate and a line extending from a point of tangency, at which the tangent line contacts the edge, to a point at which a removal liquid contacts the substrate by an edge bead removal nozzle, is decreased.”
However, ‘177 does teach that it is performed as needed to obtain the desired result (¶ 56).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation “such that an angle formed by a tangent line contacting an edge of the substrate and a line extending from a point of tangency, at which the tangent line contacts the edge, to a point at which a removal liquid contacts the substrate by an edge bead removal nozzle, is decreased”; a tangent line can be chosen on the wafer that reads on the limitation such that when the nozzle is moved in the Y-axis direction the angle will decrease as claimed because no frame of reference or specific location on the wafer relative to the center of the wafer and nozzle is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to repeat position multiple times as needed to obtain the desired edge bead removal and thus an operation of adjusting a region from which the film is removed by changing a value of the Y-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position because it is prima facie obvious to optimize the number of times of adjusting to obtain the desired result.
Claim 2: ‘177 further teaches an operation of moving the EBR nozzle to a preset default position (see Fig. 6, adjust process control, feedback adjust process recipe for next wafer, feed forward adjust future process recipe; in conjunction with ¶ 56 which teaches adjusting the EBR position, angle and scan rate which implies moving the EBR nozzle across the wafer and thus moving it back for the next wafer).
Claim 3: It is apparent that ‘177 teaches adjusting the region from which the film is moved according to the cosine value based on a value of the X-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position, and a value obtained by changing the value of the Y-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position (the nozzle is scanned and moved in a plane on a Cartesian coordinate system and it is arbitrary where on the plane the point is chosen and therefore it is apparent that ‘177’s movement and position can be defined as cos(X)).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘177 in view of Hiatt et al. (US PG Pub 2004/0154530; hereafter ‘530).
Claim 12: ‘177 is directed towards a method of treating a substrate (title & abstract), the method comprising:
a coating operation of performing a coating process of forming a film on the rotating substrate (see Figs. 1-3, abstract, and ¶s 24 & 33); and
a conveying operation of conveying the substrate on which the coating process has been completed (the substrate is moved between modules; abstract & ¶s 7 & 96),
wherein the coating operation includes:
a liquid supply operation of supplying a first liquid to the rotating substrate to form the film on the substrate (Figs. 1-3 and ¶s 24, 26, & 33);
an edge bead removal (EBR) operation of supplying a second liquid to the rotating substrate to remove a portion of the film formed in an edge region of the substrate (Figs. 1-3 and ¶s 9, 24, & 52-56);
the edge bead removal operation includes:
an operation of positioning, at a first position on an edge of a substrate, an edge bead removal nozzle supplying a removal liquid to remove a film formed on the substrate (see Figs. 3 & 7A-7C, abstract, and ¶s 52-56);
an operation of setting an X-axis coordinate and a Y-axis coordinate of an initial position of the edge bead removal nozzle, the X-axis coordinate having a non-zero value and the initial position being at a second position different from the first position (the EBR dispense nozzle has an initial position and the angle and position can be adjusted throughout the process, ¶ 56; see also ¶ 52-56; though ‘177 does not explicitly recite the claim language it does read on setting an initial value for both (X,Y) wherein X is non-zero and the second position different from the first position because any vector movement can be defined as in (x,y) coordinate system and it is arbitrary what the initial orientation is chosen such that a movement along the vector can have non-zero values of x & y);
an operation of moving the edge bead removal nozzle in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction across a surface of the substrate to move the edge bead removal nozzle from the first position to the initial position (the EBR dispense nozzle has an initial position and the angle and position can be adjusted throughout the process, ¶ 56; see also ¶ 52-56; though ‘177 does not explicitly recite the claim language it does read on setting an initial value for both (X,Y) wherein X is non-zero and the second position different from the first position because any vector movement can be defined as in (x,y) coordinate system and it is arbitrary what the initial orientation is chosen such that a movement along the vector can have non-zero values of x & y); and
an operation of rotating the substrate while discharging the removal liquid from the edge bead removal nozzle (see ¶s 52-56).
‘177 does not teach the number of times the EBR nozzle is repositioned and thus does not explicitly teach “an operation of adjusting a region from which the film is removed by changing a value of the Y-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position, such that an angle formed by a tangent line contacting an edge of the substrate and a line extending from a point of tangency, at which the tangent line contacts the edge, to a point at which a removal liquid contacts the substrate by an edge bead removal nozzle, is decreased.”
However, ‘177 does teach that it is performed as needed to obtain the desired result (¶ 56).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation “such that an angle formed by a tangent line contacting an edge of the substrate and a line extending from a point of tangency, at which the tangent line contacts the edge, to a point at which a removal liquid contacts the substrate by an edge bead removal nozzle, is decreased”; a tangent line can be chosen on the wafer that reads on the limitation such that when the nozzle is moved in the Y-axis direction the angle will decrease as claimed because no frame of reference or specific location on the wafer relative to the center of the wafer and nozzle is provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to repeat position multiple times as needed to obtain the desired edge bead removal and thus an operation of adjusting a region from which the film is removed by changing a value of the Y-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position because it is prima facie obvious to optimize the number of times of adjusting to obtain the desired result.
‘177 does not teach conveying to a conveyance robot.
However, ‘530, which is also directed towards spin coating processes (abstract) which can include both the coating process and the edge bead removal process (¶ 9) discloses that it is known in the art of a coating track (¶ 31) to use a robot to transfer the substrate between modules (¶ 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a robot as the specific conveyance means for transferring the substrate between individual modules in the coating track of ‘177 because it is an art recognized means for transferring substrates between modules in a spin coating track and thus would have predictably been suitable as the particular conveyance means in the coating track of ‘177.
Claim 13: ‘177 further teaches an operation of moving the EBR nozzle to a preset default position (see Fig. 6, adjust process control, feedback adjust process recipe for next wafer, feed forward adjust future process recipe; in conjunction with ¶ 56 which teaches adjusting the EBR position, angle and scan rate which implies moving the EBR nozzle across the wafer and thus moving it back for the next wafer).
Claim 14: It is apparent that ‘177 teaches adjusting the region from which the film is moved according to the cosine value based on a value of the X-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position, and a value obtained by changing the value of the Y-axis coordinate, among the coordinates of the initial position (the nozzle is scanned and moved in a plane on a Cartesian coordinate system and it is arbitrary where on the plane the point is chosen and therefore it is apparent that ‘177’s movement and position can be defined as cos(X)).
Claim 15: The first liquid is a photoresist (¶ 33) and the second liquid a thinner (¶s 52-56).
Claim 16: ‘177 further teaches performing a heat treatment process on the substrate on which the coating process has been completed (see Fig. 2).
Claim 17: ‘177 teaches that the coater, the post apply back, and post expose back modules are separate modules in the coating track (see abstract and ¶s 5-8 50, & 96) and the combination teaches performing the transferring by the robot as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the amendments having support; applicant is advised that the limitation has support because it is a mathematical relation which inherently has support because of the geometry of the wafer and recites “a tangent” but does not require said tangent to be a specific tangent located at a specific (x,y) position on the wafer’s edge. Applicant is advised that there is no support for a limitation which would require the location of the tangent line to be located at a specific location on the wafer as appears to be implied in the arguments.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the amendment overcomes the rejection on record; the Office does not find this argument convincing because the limitation requires that there is a tangent line at the edge of the wafer and a line extending from a point of tangency (i.e. one of the infinite tangent lines are chosen with a similar infinite possible lines extending from the point of tangency) such that an angle formed between the line connected to the point of tangency the angle is decreased does not require a specific choice of the point of tangency and thus there is at least one point on the circle which solves the relation recited. See below wherein the angle formed by line B is smaller than the angle formed by line A:
PNG
media_image1.png
414
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
