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 § 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, 5, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP65-80776B2 to Egashira et al. (see machine translation).
As to claim 1, Egashira discloses a substrate processing method comprising: forming a liquid film of protective liquid, which covers a front surface of a substrate, by supplying the protective liquid, which protects a front surface pattern of the substrate, to the front surface of the substrate on which a liquid processing using a processing liquid has been performed (see Egashira paragraphs [0031]-[0034] disclosing performing a liquid processing using a processing liquid on the front surface of the substrate and paragraphs [0019], [0034]-[0036] disclosing forming a liquid film of a protective IPA liquid); loading the substrate, after the forming the liquid film, into a processing container in a state where the liquid film of the protective liquid is formed (see Egashira paragraphs [0038]-[0039]); supplying a pressurized fluid, after the loading the substrate, into the processing container, replacing the processing liquid on the substrate with the pressurized processing fluid supplied into the processing container while maintaining an internal pressure of the processing container at a level where the processing fluid remains in a supercritical state, discharging the processing fluid from the processing container, and drying the substrate (see Egashira paragraphs [0038]-[0046]). Egashira further discloses that IPA is supplied to both the front and back surfaces of the wafer (see Egashira paragraphs [0019] and [0034]) and thus discloses cleaning a rear surface of the substrate by supplying a cleaning liquid, which cleans the rear surface of the substrate, to the rear surface of the substrate wherein the cleaning the rear surface is performed at least while the forming the liquid is performed (see Egashira paragraphs [0019] and [0034]).
As to claim 2, Egashira discloses that the processing liquid is a water-repellent agent that makes the front surface of the substrate water-repellent (see Egashira paragraphs [0031]-[0034]).
As to claim 3, Egashira discloses that the cleaning liquid can be IPA (see Egashira paragraphs [0019] and [0034]).
As to claim 5, Egashira discloses that the cleaning liquid and the protective liquid can be IPA (see Egashira paragraphs [0019] and [0034]).
As to claim 11, Egashira discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising: at least one liquid processing unit (see Egashira Fig. 2, ref.#2) and at least one supercritical drying unit (see Egashira Fig. 4, ref.#31) wherein the liquid processing unit includes a substrate holding rotator that holds a substrate in a horizontal posture and rotates the substrate around a vertical axis (see Egashira Fig. 2, ref.#23); and a processing fluid supplied including at least one front surface nozzle capable of supplying at least a processing liquid and a protective liquid to a front surface of the substrate held and rotated by the substrate holding rotator, at least one rear surface nozzle capable of supplying at least a cleaning liquid to a rear surface of the substrate held and rotated by the substrate holding rotator, and a processing fluid supply mechanism that supplied a liquid necessary for a processing to the at least one front surface nozzle and the at least one rear surface nozzle (see Egashira Figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs [0014]-[0021] and [0029]-[0036] disclosing a top nozzle 24, 241 and bottom nozzle 231 to supply the liquids to the front and rear surfaces of the substrate); and wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprises a controller that controls operation of the liquid processing unit and the supercritical drying unit to execute the substrate processing method of claim 1 (see Egashira paragraphs [0010], [0028]).
As to claim 12, Egashira discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a computer constituting a controller of a substrate processing apparatus, causes the computer to control the substrate processing apparatus to execute the substrate processing method of claim 1 (see Egashira paragraphs [0010], [0028]).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP65-80776B2 to Egashira et al. (see machine translation).
Egashira is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 4, while Egashira does not explicitly disclose the temperature of the cleaning liquid supplied to the rear surface of the substrate, Egashira does not disclose that the cleaning liquid is heated or cooled and thus is reasonably expected to be around room temperature (about 25 degrees C) (see also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) where differences in temperature will not support the patentability unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP65-80776B2 to Egashira et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2018-056467A to Tanaka et al. (see machine translation).
Egashira is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 6, Egashira does not explicitly disclose that when the forming the liquid film is being performed on the front surface of the substrate and the cleaning the rear surface is being performed on the rear surface of the substrate, a supply flow rate of the protective liquid to the front surface is greater than or equal to the supply flow rate of the cleaning liquid to the rear surface. Tanaka discloses a similar method wherein the flow rate to the front surface is greater than the flow rate to the rear surface (see Tanaka paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Egashira to have a greater flow rate to the front surface than the rear surface as disclosed by Tanaka in order to prevent contamination of the front surface of the substrate (see Tanaka paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
As to claim 7, while Egashira does not explicitly disclose that the cleaning of the rear surface is terminated after a predetermined time is passed from the initiation of the forming of the liquid film, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to terminate the cleaning of the rear surface before the termination of the forming of the liquid film in order to prevent contamination of the front surface of the substrate by the cleaning liquid being applied to the back surface (see Tanaka paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). Furthermore, it is reasonably expected that the cleaning of the rear surface would be terminated after a predetermined time in order to be able to form the protective liquid film of IPA on the front side and to transfer the substrate to the container.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP65-80776B2 to Egashira et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JP2012-222329A to Nakamori (see machine translation).
Egashira is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 9, while Egashira discloses that the supply of the cleaning liquid to the rear surface can be performed simultaneously with the initiation of the forming of the liquid film (see Egashira paragraphs [0019] and [0034]), Egashira does not explicitly disclose the supply of the cleaning liquid in the cleaning the rear surface is initiated simultaneously at a time point when transition from the liquid processing using the water-repellent agent as the processing liquid to the forming the liquid film is terminated, which is when the supply of the water-repellent agent is stopped. Nakamori discloses a similar method wherein the IPA film forming step is initiated when the supply of the water-repellent agent is stopped (see Nakamori paragraphs [0035]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the IPA film forming step be initiated when the supply of the water-repellent agent is stopped in order to allow the water-repellent agent be washed away by the IPA as is known in the art and prevent the surface of the wafer from drying out (see Nakamori paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP65-80776B2 to Egashira et al. (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0103881 to Egashira et al. (the ‘881 application).
Egashira is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, while Egashira discloses the protective liquid Egashira does not explicitly disclose the protective liquid is supplied to a center of the front surface of the rotating substrate (see, e.g., Egashira Figs. 2 and 5, where the top nozzle 241 is supplying the fluid to the center of the front surface of the rotating substrate), Egashira does not explicitly disclose that the cleaning liquid is supplied to a position away from a center of the rear surface of the rotating substrate and to a position where the cleaning liquid that spears after being applied to the rear surface reaches the center of the rear surface of the substrate. The ‘881 application discloses a similar method wherein cleaning fluid is applied to a position away from the center of the rear surface (see the ‘881 application Figs. 8 and 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Egashira to have the cleaning liquid be also supplied to a position away from the center in order to ensure that the contaminants on the periphery of the substrate are also cleaned as disclosed by the ‘881 application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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: While the cited prior art discloses supplying the water-repellent agent to the substrate surface, stopping the supplying of the water-repellent agent and then performing the IPA film formation (see Egashira paragraphs [0031]-[0039]). The cited prior art does not disclose the supply of the cleaning liquid in the cleaning the rear surface is initiated when the water-repellent agent and the protective liquid are simultaneously supplied to the front surface of the substrate during transition from the liquid processing using the water-repellent agent as the processing liquid to the forming the liquid film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights