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 .
Applicant’s election traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The restriction is maintained for the reasons set forth in paragraph 3 of the Office Action of 10/30/2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the following reasons. Paragraph 9 of the specification defines ultra-fine bubbles having a diameter of 1 micron or less. Claim 1 recites ultrafine bubbles, wherein the bubbles, based on the specification, are defined as being bubbles having a diameter of 1 micron or less. Therefore claim 2 is indefinite and not further limiting. Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether applicant means a) the substrate having the liquid film is conveyed to the chamber or b) the substrate is conveyed in the chamber and the liquid film is formed on the substrate in the chamber. Specifically, it is unclear whether the liquid film is formed in a separate chamber from that of the processing liquid in a supercritical state.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiki et al. (US2024/0395538A1) 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 claims 1-3, Namiki 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 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 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 Tachibana (US2018/0161737A1) and further in view of Eun (KR20220005304A; machine translation).
Namiki et al. in view of 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stanasolovich et al. teach megasonic energy. Ishibashi teaches nanobubbles. Fukui et al., Goshi, Takahashi et al., and Yamaguchi et al. teach supercritical processing.
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