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 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 megasonic emission device” in claim 1; “a cleaning device” in claim 1.
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 § 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 1-18 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 "the charges . . . the megasonic emission device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bottom of the cleaning device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first end of the connection terminal." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second end of the connection terminal." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 12 recites the limitation "the upper surface of the substrate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lower surface of the electric conductor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lower surface of the megasonic emission device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sidewalls of the megasonic emission device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the megasonic emission device has a . . . pie shape,” which is indefinite because there is no standard for determining what constitutes a pie shape.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the chemical solution film." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the bottom of the conductive nozzle." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the ionized wind-coverable area." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 103489814; cited by Applicant) in view of Ji et al. (CN 103008282) and Kim et al. (KR 10-2016-0054142).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a chamber (12); a substrate tray, provided within the chamber, for carrying a substrate (50); a megasonic emission device, for transmitting megasonic energy to chemical solution between the megasonic emission device and the substrate (70).
Gao does not expressly disclose a cleaning device, for cleaning the megasonic emission device, the cleaning device comprising an electrostatic conductor assembly provided in the cleaning device and provided for electrically connecting with the megasonic emission device for conducting the charges away from the megasonic emission device.
Ji discloses a cleaning tank (1) for cleaning a megasonic transducer (9) by supplying a cleaning liquid at a liquid inlet (2). Kim discloses a home port (900) for a movable nozzle (892), including a liquid ejection unit (940) to eject a liquid to the nozzle (892) and an electrostatic removing member (950) including a ground to remove static from an upper body (930) of the home port (900).
Because it is known in the art to have a megasonic cleaner, and to have a home port with an electrostatic removing member for a cleaning device, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, removing any electrostatic charge generated from use of the megasonic device or its nozzle, 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 cleaning device, for cleaning the megasonic emission device, the cleaning device comprising an electrostatic conductor assembly provided in the cleaning device and provided for electrically connecting with the megasonic emission device for conducting the charges away from the megasonic emission device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gao is relied upon as applied above and further results in: the electrostatic conductor assembly is grounded (Kim: Figures 6-7: 950); when the megasonic emission device is cleaned in the cleaning device, the electrostatic conductor assembly is electrically connected to the megasonic emission device by means of the cleaning solution in the cleaning device, so as to cause charges on the megasonic emission device to be conducted away sequentially through the cleaning solution in the cleaning device and the electrostatic conductor assembly (Ji: see interior of tank 1).
Modified Gao does not expressly disclose or result in wherein the electrostatic conductor assembly is fixed to the bottom of the cleaning device; however, this limitation is considered to be a mere rearrangement of parts and/or a mere duplication of parts, both of which have been shown to be obvious to a PHOSITA. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) – Duplication of Parts. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C) – Rearrangement of Parts. 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 rearrange and/or provide additional an electrostatic conductor assemblies to be as claimed, predictably removing any electrostatic charge present on the bottom of the cleaning tank.
Claim 3 is considered to be met by modified Gao as applied above and which results in: wherein the electrostatic conductor assembly comprises a connection terminal (Kim: end of the wire 950) and a wire (Kim: rest of the wire 950), the connection terminal and the wire are electrically connected (Kim: Figures 6-7: 950), the connection terminal is fixedly located at the bottom of the cleaning device (see above modification), and the wire is grounded (Figures 6-7: see ground symbol).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 103489814; cited by Applicant) in view of Ji et al. (CN 103008282) and Kim et al. (KR 10-2016-0054142), and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0334318).
Regarding claim 4, modified Gao is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first end of the connection terminal penetrates the bottom of the cleaning device and is electrically connected to the cleaning solution, and the second end of the connection terminal is connected to the wire.
Cho discloses a chemical liquid supply apparatus having a chemical liquid supply pipe (12) including conductive layers (Figures 3A-3F: 13, 13’) from an inner surface to an outer surface of the supply pipe and being connected to a grounded conductor (15).
Because it is known in the art to have a connection terminal as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, directly grounding the fluid in the cleaning device, 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 first end of the connection terminal penetrates the bottom of the cleaning device and is electrically connected to the cleaning solution, and the second end of the connection terminal is connected to the wire.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 103489814; cited by Applicant) in view of Ji et al. (CN 103008282) and Kim et al. (KR 10-2016-0054142), in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0334318), and further in view of Osada et al. (US 2008/0251107).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gao is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the electrostatic conductor assembly further comprises a shield covering the second end of the connection terminal, the shield is provided with a through-wire hole, and the wire is grounded after passing through the through-wire hole.
Osada discloses a nozzle device (600), including nozzles (60a, 60b, 60c), wherein ground wires (96) are attached to a screw (N) attached to a metallic pipe (91), and the ground wire (96) is coated with a chemical resistant resin tube (97; paragraphs 128-129).
Because it is known in the art to have an electrostatic conductor assembly and shield as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a chemically resistant shield, 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 electrostatic conductor assembly further comprises a shield covering the second end of the connection terminal, the shield is provided with a through-wire hole, and the wire is grounded after passing through the through-wire hole.
Claim(s) 7-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 103489814; cited by Applicant), in view of Ji et al. (CN 103008282) and Kim et al. (KR 10-2016-0054142), and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 109890520; cited by Applicant) and Cho et al. (US 2018/0334318).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gao is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a grounded electric conductor, configured such that when the megasonic emission device is located above the substrate, the charges on the megasonic emission device are conducted to the electric conductor through the chemical solution on the upper surface of the substrate and are conducted away by the electric conductor.
Gao further discloses a two-fluid cleaning mechanism (60) attached to the megasonic cleaning mechanism (70). Wang discloses a device and method for cleaning wafers, including an ultrasonic or megasonic device below a cantilever (Figure 1A: 101; 103) and a nozzle (108) shown to be even with the bottom of the resonator (103), with both the resonator and nozzle in the cleaning solution (103, 104, 108). Cho discloses a chemical liquid supply apparatus having a chemical liquid supply pipe (12) including conductive layers (Figures 3A-3F: 13, 13’) from an inner surface to an outer surface of the supply pipe and being connected to a grounded conductor (15), and in an embodiment a supply nozzle is also grounded (Figure 4: 14, 15’).
Because it is known in the art to have a nozzle contacting the cleaning solution and to have a grounded liquid supply pipe or nozzle, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a grounded supply nozzle to the ultrasonic assembly, 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 grounded electric conductor, configured such that when the megasonic emission device is located above the substrate, the charges on the megasonic emission device are conducted to the electric conductor through the chemical solution on the upper surface of the substrate and are conducted away by the electric conductor.
Claims 8-11 are considered to be met by modified Gao as applied above and which results in: wherein when the megasonic emission device is lowered above the substrate, the lower surface of the electric conductor contacts the chemical solution on the upper surface of the substrate prior to or at the same time as the lower surface of the megasonic emission device does, such that the charges on the megasonic emission device are conducted to the electric conductor by the chemical solution and are conducted away by the electric conductor (Gao: Figure 3: 50, 60, 70; Wang: Figure 1A: 103, 104, 108); wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a first cantilever installed on top of the megasonic emission device (Wang: 101); the electric conductor comprises an electrically conductive portion and a fixing portion connected, the electrically conductive portion is fixed to the first cantilever by the fixing portion (Wang: 108, and top edge of 108), the electrically conductive portion is in contact with or spaced apart from at least one of the sidewalls of the megasonic emission device (Wang: 103, 108), and a lower surface of the electrically conductive portion exceeds the lower surface of the megasonic emission device (Wang: 108 exceeds in the direction of the cantilever); wherein the megasonic emission device has a triangular or pie shape (Wang: Figure 1B), the megasonic emission device has a first sidewall, a second sidewall, and a third sidewall (Wang: Figure 1B), and the conductive portion is provided in contact with or spaced apart from at least one of the first sidewall, second sidewall, and third sidewall of the megasonic emission device (Wang: Figure 1A: 103, 108); wherein the electric conductor is made of ESD PTFE, ESD PEEK, ESD PCTFE, ESD ETFE or ESD PFA material (Cho: paragraph 58, see carbon-containing PEEK, PFA, or PTFE).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gao is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a grounded conductive nozzle, configured such that when the megasonic emission device is lowered above the substrate, the conductive nozzle first sprays the chemical solution onto the upper surface of the substrate, and when the megasonic emission device is immersed in the chemical solution film on the upper surface of the substrate, the charges on the megasonic emission device are conducted to the conductive nozzle through the chemical solution and are conducted away by the conductive nozzle.
Gao further discloses a two-fluid cleaning mechanism (60) attached to the megasonic cleaning mechanism (70). Wang discloses a device and method for cleaning wafers, including an ultrasonic or megasonic device below a cantilever (Figure 1A: 101; 103) and a nozzle (108) shown to be even with the bottom of the resonator (103), with both the resonator and nozzle in the cleaning solution (103, 104, 108). Cho discloses a chemical liquid supply apparatus having a chemical liquid supply pipe (12) including conductive layers (Figures 3A-3F: 13, 13’) from an inner surface to an outer surface of the supply pipe and being connected to a grounded conductor (15), and in an embodiment a supply nozzle is also grounded (Figure 4: 14, 15’).
Because it is known in the art to have a nozzle contacting the cleaning solution and to have a grounded liquid supply pipe or nozzle, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a grounded supply nozzle to the ultrasonic assembly, 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 grounded conductive nozzle, configured such that when the megasonic emission device is lowered above the substrate, the conductive nozzle first sprays the chemical solution onto the upper surface of the substrate, and when the megasonic emission device is immersed in the chemical solution film on the upper surface of the substrate, the charges on the megasonic emission device are conducted to the conductive nozzle through the chemical solution and are conducted away by the conductive nozzle.
Claims 13, and 15 are considered to be met by modified Gao as applied above and which results in: wherein the conductive nozzle is provided on one side of the megasonic emission device (Wang: 103, 108); wherein the conductive nozzle is made of ESD PTFE, ESD PEEK, ESD PCTFE, ESD ETFE or ESD PFA material (Cho: paragraph 58, see carbon-containing PEEK, PFA, or PTFE).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 103489814; cited by Applicant), in view of Ji et al. (CN 103008282) and Kim et al. (KR 10-2016-0054142), in view of Wang et al. (CN 109890520; cited by Applicant) and Cho et al. (US 2018/0334318), and further in view of Kosugi (US 7,431,040).
Regarding claim 14, modified Gao is relied upon as above and further discloses wherein the conductive nozzle has a plurality of outlet ports (Wang: Figure 2: 209), but does not expressly disclose wherein the conductive nozzle has an inlet port, the inlet port is provided on top of the conductive nozzle, and the plurality of outlet ports are evenly distributed at the bottom of the conductive nozzle.
Kosugi discloses an apparatus to dispense a rinse solution to a substrate including a rinse nozzle assembly (Figure 4: 430) having a second nozzle array (442), wherein the figures show the nozzle array is connected to the rinse source from above and includes a plurality of nozzles on the bottom that appear to be evenly spaced (Figure 4).
Because it is known in the art to have a nozzle arrangement as claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, evenly providing a fluid using a known arrangement, 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 conductive nozzle has an inlet port, the inlet port is provided on top of the conductive nozzle, and the plurality of outlet ports are evenly distributed at the bottom of the conductive nozzle.
Conclusion
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