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 without traverse of Group II, claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 4/1/2026 is acknowledged.
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 8-14 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 8 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as "mist-like" or "droplet-like". Furthermore, the limitations of lowering the substrate to a position in the processing tank where the processing liquid is not stored in the solvent supply state is indefinite since the previous step recites discharging the processing liquid from the tank. It is unclear what is meant by the processing liquid "not stored in the solvent supply state". The examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite "lowering the substrate to a position in the processing tank where the processing liquid is not stored". Additionally, the limitation of "mist-like" is interpreted to include vapor, as a vapor by definition is a mist. Claim 11, line 11, replace "awater-repellent" with --a water repellent--.
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) 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US2022/0208545A1).
For examination purposes, the limitations of "mist-like" are interpreted broadly to include a vapor since a vapor by definition is a mist.
Re claim 8, Yamamoto et al. teach a substrate processing method comprising a substrate processing device of Fig. 9 comprising a processing tank 230, a chamber 212 that accommodates the tank; a decompression pump 280 (paragraph 169) that decompresses the inside of the chamber; a lifter (fig. 8, element 226) that lifts the substrate up and down while holding the substrate, an on/off valve 270b (Fig. 9) that discharges processing liquid L from the tank, the method comprising: a solvent supply step of causing the pump to decompress the inside of the chamber and supplying at least a mist-like solvent (i.e. IPA vapor) from the solvent supply unit 242b when the substrate is immersed in the processing liquid (step S9, Fig. 11, paragraphs 180-181); a substrate extraction step of lifting the substrate from the processing liquid in the tank in which the chamber is decompressed and the solvent (i.e. IPA vapor) is supplied (paragraph 182, step S10 of Fig. 11); a discharging step of discharging the processing liquid from the tank by opening the on/off valve 270 after the substrate extraction step (paragraph 183, step S11 of Fig. 11); a substrate lifting step of lifting and lowering the substrate in the processing tank (paragraph 184, step S12 of Fig. 12). Paragraph 185 teaches repeating the vertical movement of the substrate holding part, wherein the solvent supply unit (242b) is provided in the chamber, the solvent supply unit is disposed at a position higher than the opening forming the upper surface of the tank 230, and supplies at least one mist-like solvent (i.e. vapor IPA) from an outside of the processing tank toward an inside of the processing tank in plan view (refer of Fig. 9). Re claim 11, refer to paragraph 185 which teaches stopping the supply of the IPA vapor and supplying a water repellent agent from nozzle 262a,b (step S13 of Fig. 12). Re claims 12-13, refer to step S15 of Fig. 12 and paragraph 187.
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) 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US2022/0208545A1).
Re claim 9, Yamamoto et al. teach lifting the substrate to two positions, a lower position in the tank (Fig. 8) and raising the substrate above the tank (Fig. 8). Re claim 9, the preset time reads on any time, such that lowering the substrate in the tank, and raising the substrate above the tank would read on a preset time. Re claim 14, refer to the embodiment of Fig. 14, steps d and e, in which the substrate is immersed in a liquid IPA after the water-repellent treatment and lowered into the processing tank and raised above the tank. Re claims 9 and 14, Yamamoto do not teach the lower standby time being longer than an upper standby time. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the immersion cleaning time in the tank depending upon such factors as the amount and type of contaminants present on the substrate and the temperature of the processing liquid in the tank. Re claim 10, refer to paragraph 185.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kimura teaches a substrate processing method. Yamamoto et al. teach treating the wafer with a cleaning liquid followed by drying. Hamashima et al. teach a substrate processing method. Ito et al. recite applicant's published application.
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