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 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiki et al. (US2024/0395538A1) in view of Ikutsu (JP2004327894A; machine translation) and further in view of Tachibana (US2018/0161737A1).
Re claim 1, Namiki et al. teach a method of processing a substrate with a processing fluid in a supercritical state inside a chamber (abstract), the method comprising forming a liquid film (i.e. rinsing agent, alcohol) by using a liquid on a surface of the substrate held in a horizontal posture (step S101, Fig. 1, paragraphs 31, 35), introducing a processing fluid not in a supercritical state into the chamber (step 103, paragraphs 61, 74, 77-79). Paragraph 74 specifically states processing the substrate with a rinsing solution in a first chamber and replacing the rinsing liquid with the chemical solution in the first chamber. Specifically, the chemical solution replacement step is performed in the first chamber. Namiki et al. further teaches the substrate with the chemical solution being transported into a second chamber and raising the temperature and pressure of the chemical solution to allow for a supercritical state (paragraph 74). Paragraph 62 further teaches raising the pressure higher than the critical point to form a supercritical state. Paragraph 64 teaches that the chemical solution is allowed to reach the supercritical state and is then removed from the chamber. Paragraph 65 further teaches removing the chemical solution from the substrate by decreasing the pressure to vaporize the chemical solution, thereby drying the substrate.
Re claim 1, Namiki et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of pressurizing the process fluid to pressurize the liquid forming the liquid film. Ikutsu teaches a supercritical drying method to suppress the collapse of fine pattern on the substrate surface by treating with a cleaning liquid and then replacing the cleaning liquid (i.e. cleaning film) adhering to the substrate surface with a liquified supercritical fluid in a closed container, wherein the supercritical fluid is pressurized to about 6MPa during replacement of the cleaning liquid (paragraph 11). Paragraph 11 specifically further teaches heating the vessel to a temperature and pressure higher than the critical point to convert the liquified CO2 to supercritical CO2. Paragraph 18 further teaches by replacing the cleaning liquid with a pressurized liquified CO2, problems of pattern collapse can be suppressed. 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 Namiki et al. to include pressurizing the liquid film and the processing fluid prior to forming a supercritical state, as taught by Ikutsu et al. for purposes of suppressing pattern collapse. Additionally, it is well known in the art, as evidenced by Goshi (US 20230290632A1; PTO-892 of 1/27/2026) to increase the internal pressure of the chamber while a supercritical fluid is being added in order to remove the rinsing liquid (i.e. IPA), such that the wafer can be dried effectively while suppressing pattern collapse (paragraph 67).
Re claims 1 and 3, Namiki et al. in view of Ikutsu et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the liquid comprising ultrafine bubbles, wherein the ultrafine bubbles, based on the specification having diameters of 0.1 micron or less. Tachibana teaches cleaning with micro/nano-bubbles in which a treatment solution containing micro/nanobubbles onto a substrate to be processed makes it possible to efficiently and reliably remove contaminants from the substrate (abstract). Paragraph 11 teaches the use of micro/nanobubbles for semiconductor cleaning. Paragraph 28-29 teaches bubbles having a particle size of 100nm (equivalent to 0.1 micron) or preferably 30nm (equivalent to 0.03 micron). 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 modified method of Namiki et al. to include a liquid having ultrafine bubbles, as taught by Tachibana, for purposes of efficiently and reliably removing contaminants from the substrate surface. Re claim 4, Namiki et al. conveying the substrate having the liquid from a first chamber to a second chamber for supercritical processing (paragraph 75).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiki et al. (US2024/0395538A1) in view of Ikutsu (JP2004327894A) and Tachibana (US2018/0161737A1) and further in view of Eun (KR20220005304A; machine translation).
Namiki et al. in view of Ikutsu and Tachibana teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of mixing the ultrafine bubbles of nitrogen gas into the liquid. Eun teaches a method of processing a substrate to remove fine particles in which a treatment solution is mixed with nano-microbubbles (paragraph 6), wherein a treatment liquid for cleaning includes water, IPA and the gas capable of causing cavitation includes N2 (paragraph 46). 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 modified method of Namiki et al. to include using nitrogen, as taught by Eun, for purposes of generating nano-microbubbles used to remove fine particles during the cleaning of the semiconductor wafer.
Response to Arguments
6. The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the newly amended claim limitations and cancellation of claim 2.
7. The rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Namiki in view of the secondary references are maintained for the reasons set forth above. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest pressurizing the processing liquid to pressurize the liquid forming the liquid film. The newly amended limitations are taught by Ikutsu for the reasons recited above, and further evidenced by Goshi. Additionally, the examiner further argues that the replacement of a fluid (i.e. cleaning or rinsing liquid) by a supercritical fluid is well known in the art during the supercritical drying steps. Furthermore, it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to pressurize the fluid (cleaning or rinsing fluid) by heating or by pressurizing the supercritical fluid in order to increase the miscibility between both fluids and/or to aid in the vaporization of the cleaning/rinsing fluid, such that the cleaning/rinsing fluid can be effectively and efficiently replaced by the supercritical fluid in order to reduce the drying time and suppress pattern collapse of the substrate surface.
8. Applicant further argues that the prior art fails to teaches UFBs added to the liquid film when pressurization is performed. Applicant specifically argues that the prior art fails to teach pressurizing the liquid and the UFBs, wherein the UFBs are pressurized to contract to a smaller diameter size. Applicant's arguments are not persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed invention. The claim requires forming a liquid film "by using a liquid containing ultrafine bubbles". The claim is silent to the liquid film having ultrafine bubbles, and/or pressurizing the processing fluid to pressurize the liquid and the ultrafine bubbles in the liquid film.
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.
9. 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
Prosecution Insights