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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant utilizes the phrase “the controller determines” in claims 4-5. This phrase is understood to impart a positive limitation to the controller (i.e., the controller is configured to determine whatever limitations follow) and not intended use.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation “a controller that specifies”. However, the phrasing is unclear as to whether such language is considered intended use or not (i.e., is the controller merely capable of performing such a limitation or is the controller actually configured to perform such a limitation). Similar issues is taken with the phrase “controller specifies” in claim 2. For examination purposes, the limitations will be understood as positively recited limitation (i.e., the controller is configured to perform the limitations that follow).
The remaining limitations are rejected for being dependent on a previously rejected claim.
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, 3-4, & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carcasi (US20210134637A1).
As to claim 1, Carcasi discloses a substrate apparatus (abstract), comprising a chamber (see chamber walls ref 62); a substrate holder (ref 64) that rotates a substrate while holding the substrate in the chamber [0041]; a processing liquid supply including a pipe and nozzle (refs 68, 70, 74, and liquid supply unit), that supplies a processing liquid onto an upper surface of the substrate [0042]; a near infrared [0056-0057] light source (ref 92) that illuminates an inside of the chamber with near0infrared light; a near infrared [0056-0057] imager (ref 90) that generates a captured image by capturing an image of the processing liquid in the chamber illuminated with the near infrared light from the light source [0046, 0048, & 0052-0053]; a controller (ref 94) that specifies an outer edge of the processing liquid in the chamber based on the captured image [0061, 0067, 0070, & 0073-0075].
As to claims 3-4, Carcasi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the imager captures the image of the processing liquid during a state in which the upper surface of the substrate is supplied with the processing liquid [0061, 0066-0068, 0070-0071 & 0073]. Further such a limitation is intended use. The controller is also programmed to determine the coverage of the upper surface of the wafer via the captured image (see Fig.6 & [0061, 0066-0068, 0070-0071 & 0073]).
As to claim 8, Carcasi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light source and imager are inside the chamber (see Fig.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcasi (US20210134637A1) in view of Carcasi (US20220388022A1, hereafter C1).
As to claim 2, Carcasi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose identifying the fluid type based on the captured image. However, determining fluid composition based on infrared imaging is known in the art, as seen by C1.
C1 discloses an art related substrate treating system (abstract), wherein it is known that short infrared (i.e., near-infrared) radiation used to determine composition of liquid mixtures [0063] via their absorption at different wavelengths [0070-0071]. C1 further discloses that such determination of mixtures is made utilizing a camera [0094 & 0097] uses camera as well. In determining a composition of a fluid mixture, a type of fluid can be identified (i.e., identifying the components within a fluid naturally identifies the fluid). Further, such identification can allow for determining if the fluid meets specification and/or the process needs to be adjusted or terminated [0066 & 0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Carcasi to utilize the infrared imager to identify the type of fluid (i.e., composition) in order to determine if the fluid meets specification and/or the process needs to be adjusted or terminated (C1 [0066 & 0069]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcasi (US20210134637A1) in view of Yoshihara (US20090291198A1).
As to claim 5, Carcasi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose a second liquid supply which is starting after the stopping of a first liquid supply. However, the usage of two different liquid supplies for the surface treatment of a substrate is known in the art, as seen by Yoshihara.
Yoshihara discloses an art related substrate treating apparatus (abstract), wherein the process of supplying a resist coating to an upper surface of the substrate includes providing a pure water supply step and a solvent supply step prior to the resist supply (Figs.3-6). Each supply is provided via a nozzle associated each fluid (see refs 34, 40, & 47). Such a procedure allows for a prewetting of the substrate to facilitate the diffusion of a resist coating without producing defects [0006-0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Carcasi to implement a first and second liquid supplies to supply first and second processing liquids to the substrate in order to allow for coating of the substrate with a resist coating without introducing defects (Yoshihara [0006-0008]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize the controller to determine whether the second liquid (e.g., resist coating or solvent supply) entirely covers the substrate to ensure operation proceeds as desired (see Carcasi [0061, 0067-0068, & 0070] indicating determination of puddle coverage via imaging & Yoshihara Fig.6 indicating desired coverage amounts of each liquid).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcasi (US20210134637A1) in view of Okamura (US20210043482A1).
As to claims 6-7, Carcasi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light source and the imager are placed opposite each other (see Fig.3D & [0053]). Although Carcasi does not explicitly disclose the light source and the imager being outside the chamber, Carcasi does indicate that both elements can be located elsewhere [0046]. Further, it is also known in the art that an infrared imaging device is not limited in its placement, as seen by Okamura.
Okamura discloses an art related substrate treating apparatus (abstract), wherein an IR camera detect liquid state in processing chamber (abstract). Okamura further indicates that the position of the infrared camera is not limited and can be at any location so long as the target is capable of being imaged [0050].
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the light source and imager can be located at any location, including the claimed arrangement, so long as the light source and imager can perform their intended function. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to rearrange the light source and imager to any location, including the claimed arrangement, so long as they elements are capable of performing their intended function of illuminating and imaging the substrate (see MPEP 2144.04 & Okamura [0050]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcasi (US20210134637A1) in view of Kunugimoto (US20210080830A1).
As to claim 9, Carcasi teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose the imager capturing an image of the processing liquid located at the nozzle. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Kunugimoto and Noda.
Kunugimoto discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to image a nozzle and the liquid therein to determine if the nozzle is experiencing and abnormality (abstract and [0036-0038 & 0055-0060]). The imaging utilizes infrared light [0025] and thus, a skilled artisan would understand the camera (ref 36) also images in the infrared area. The imaging of the nozzle in Kunugimoto allows for preventing abnormal liquid processing of the substrate [0077], while improving liquid detection accuracy [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Carcasi to include the nozzle and liquid therein within the image in order to prevent abnormal liquid processing of the substrate, while improving liquid detection accuracy (Kunugimoto [0067 & 0077]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights