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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 4/29/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 have been amended. Claims 8-20 are new.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2020-516076 is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara et al. (US 2016/0293401) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-516076 or Hara in view of Cripe et al. (US 5,421,595) is also withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rotation driving unit” in claim 1; and “a heating unit” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8-11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji et al. (JP H10-83948).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji discloses a wet processing apparatus for processing a workpiece, the wet processing apparatus comprising: a stage (2); a plurality of support pins protruding upward from the stage, respectively, and configured to support an outer edge of the workpiece at positions spaced from each other in a circumferential direction (7); a rotation driving unit for rotating the stage about a rotation axis extending in a vertical direction (3); a supply nozzle for supplying a process liquid to the workpiece from above the workpiece, in a state in which the workpiece is supported by the plurality of support pins (17); a holding ring configured to be placed on the stage so as to surround the plurality of support pins below the workpiece, the holding ring being configured such that, in a state in which the holding ring is placed on the stage, a top surface of the holding ring is spaced from a back surface of the workpiece in the vertical direction (10), the holding ring being configured such that a portion of the process liquid supplied from above the workpiece that falls into the holding ring fills a space between the back surface of the workpiece and a top surface of the stage, thereby enabling simultaneous contact between (i) the process liquid and an upper surface of the workpiece and (ii) the process liquid and the back surface of the workpiece (see locations of 2, 7, 10, 17, 100).
Note that supporting, rotating and supplying a liquid to a workpiece as claimed is
intended use of the claimed apparatus capable of being met by the apparatus of Tsuji. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, the apparatus of Tsuji would be capable of being operated with a liquid, such that the supply nozzle is configured to supply of a predetermined volume of the process liquid that is held on an upper surface of the workpiece by surface tension and fills the space between the back surface of the workpiece and the top surface of the stage. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, the apparatus of Tsuji would be capable of being operated with a liquid, such that the rotation driving unit is configured to rotate the stage at a predetermined rotational frequency allowing the process liquid to remain in an upper space between the workpiece and the supply nozzle and the space between the back surface of the workpiece and the top surface of the stage. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji discloses an apparatus for processing a workpiece comprising: a stage (2); a plurality of support pins protruding upward from the stage, upper portions of the plurality of support pins defining a first plane (7); a motor configured to rotate the stage (3); a nozzle disposed above a second plane located above the first plane (17); a first space defined between a lower end of the nozzle and the second plane (a space between 17 and the top of 100); a ring configured to be placed on the stage and including an opening configured to surround the plurality of support pins, a top surface of the ring being disposed below the first plane (10; top of 10 is below bottom of 100); and a second space defined by a top surface of the stage, the ring, and the first plane (a space between 2, 10, and the bottom of 100), wherein the apparatus is dimensioned such that a liquid, when discharged from the nozzle, is caused to fill the first space and the second space (see locations of 2, 10, 17, and 100).
Note that supporting, rotating and supplying a liquid to a workpiece as claimed is
intended use of the claimed apparatus capable of being met by the apparatus of Tsuji. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Tsuji discloses wherein: the first plane corresponds to a back surface of the workpiece (bottom of 100), the second plane corresponds to an upper surface of the workpiece (top of 100), and the plurality of support pins are configured to support the workpiece at the first plane (elements 7 are broadly and reasonably supporting the wafer at the first plane).
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus of Tsuji would be capable of being operated with a liquid, such that the first space and the second space are dimensioned such that a predetermined volume of the liquid, when delivered from the nozzle, simultaneously fills the first space and the second space. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, the apparatus of Tsuji would be capable of being operated with a liquid, such that the motor is configured to rotate the stage at a predetermined rotational frequency, and the first space and the second space are dimensioned such that the liquid is held within the first space and the second space while the motor rotates the stage at the predetermined rotational frequency. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Tsuji discloses a spin table connected to the motor (4), wherein the stage is placed on a top surface of the spin table (2, 4).
Regarding claim 17, the workpiece and its size are not positively claimed elements of the claimed apparatus, so are not required for anticipation. Additionally, the apparatus of Tsuji would be capable of being used with a wafer as claimed. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (JP H10-83948) in view of Cripe et al. (US 5,421,595).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the holding ring includes a vinylidene fluoride rubber, synthetic quartz, or polytetrafluoroethylene.
Cripe discloses a vacuum chuck (10) for a semiconductor wafer (56) wherein an external chuck (12) is fabricated from ptfe or pvdf teflon, or metal, and a protective cover (13) on the upper surface of the chuck is made of polyethylene, ptfe Teflon, or other polymer material compatible with the etching process (col. 2, lines 17-25).
Because it is known in the art to fabricate a chuck or chuck cover from ptfe, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known chemical resistant/compatible material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the holding ring includes a vinylidene fluoride rubber, synthetic quartz, or polytetrafluoroethylene.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (JP H10-83948) in view of Hara et al. (US 2016/0293401).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Tsuji is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a heating unit for heating the workpiece supported by the plurality of support pins.
Hara discloses a wet processing apparatus including a stage (34) and a lamp (34e) which is a heating unit to heat the wafer (W) and the cleaning liquid (L) (paragraph 76). Heating the processing liquid allows for efficient wafer cleaning (paragraph 45).
Because it is known in the art to have a heater, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, allowing for more efficient processing, such as wafer cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a heating unit for heating the workpiece supported by the plurality of support pins.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (JP H10-83948) in view of Kuroda (US 2003/0098048).
Regarding claim 15, Tsuji is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a conveying arm configured to load the workpiece onto the plurality of support pins and unload the workpiece therefrom, wherein a thickness of the conveying arm is less than a distance between the top surface of the ring and the first plane.
Kuroda discloses a liquid processing apparatus having a cleaning unit (12) with a spin chuck (59) and a main transporting arm (34) to transfer a wafer (W) to and from a cleaning unit (paragraph 74).
Because it is known in the art to have transporting arm, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, allowing for transportation of the wafer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a conveying arm configured to load the workpiece onto the plurality of support pins and unload the workpiece therefrom. Regarding the limitation “wherein a thickness of the conveying arm is less than a distance between the top surface of the ring and the first plane,” it has been established that it is obvious to a PHOSITA to change the size of an element. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A) – Changes in Size/Proportion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the conveying arm to be less than a distance between the top surface of the ring and the first plane, and the results would be expected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the apparatus as defined by the combination of claims 1 and 2; the combination of claims 1 and 4; the combination of claims 8 and 13; or the apparatus of claim 18. Regarding claim 2, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Tsuji et al. (JP H10-83948), to further include wherein, in a top view, the holding ring has a shape in which a radial thickness of the holding ring increases with circumferential distances from a position at which one of the support pins is in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the holding ring. Regarding claims 4 and 18, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Tsuji et al. (JP H10-83948), to further include an O-ring arranged on a position with which a lower surface of the holding ring is in contact, an external dimension of the O-ring being more than that of the holding ring. Regarding claim 13, there is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Tsuji et al. (JP H10-83948), to further include wherein a largest external dimension of the ring is larger than a diameter of the stage.
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 DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights