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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 12/29/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0196399 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/13/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-3 & 12-17 in the reply filed on 11/13/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the apparatus comprises a controller configured to perform the same process as claimed in claim 1 and therefore cannot be used for a material different process.
The argument has been found convincing.
However, the restriction is still proper because the processes of claims 1 & 12 can be performed by a materially different apparatus. For example, the coating process can be performed in a separate coating apparatus and transferred to an edge bead removal apparatus to perform the process as claimed instead of in the same apparatus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 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); and
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 (‘177 teaches using the sensors for adjusting the position of the EBR nozzle and thus reads on adjusting the region by changing a value of the Y-axis given that movement in the plane reads on changing a value of the Y-axis; see ¶ 56).
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)).
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 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, 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 (process control recipe is present at the beginning of the operation which includes the position of the EBR nozzle and thus the (x,y) coordinates; see Figs. 1-3 & 6 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); and
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 (‘177 teaches using the sensors for adjusting the position of the EBR nozzle and thus reads on adjusting the region by changing a value of the Y-axis given that movement in the plan reads on changing a value of the Y-axis; see ¶ 56).
‘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.
Conclusion
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