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 § 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 6-9 and 28 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 6 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "convolution of the denoised sensor data". Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "convolution of the combined sensor data over time". Claim 8 is indefinite because of its dependency. Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "the tank". Claim 9 recites transferring the item from the cleaning tank to the tank, wherein the cleaning tank comprises an acidic or alkaline solution. However, claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, which recites after cleaning operation rinsing the component by flowing water through a tank. It is unclear in claim 1, whether the "rinsing" is performed in a separate tank from that of the cleaning operation and it is suggested amending claims 1 and 9 to refer to the tank as a "rinsing tank". Additionally, claim 28 should be amended to recite "a rinsing tank" instead of "the tank".
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) 1-5, 9-10, 18, 20-22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. (7596886) in view of Wang et al. (US2019/0143481).
Re claims 1 and 18, Boyd et al. teach a method comprising: performing at least one cleaning operation including immersing an item in acidic or alkaline solution (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30); rinsing the item and measuring the pH of the rinsing liquid (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30);determining a rinse stopping time based on the sensor data (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30); and automatically stopping the rinsing (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30). Applicant's claim language of a "furnace component" is broadly interpreted to read on both wafers processed by the method of Boyd et al and the parts of the apparatus of Boyd et al.
Re claim 1, Boyd et al teach a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of water for rinsing. However, Boyd et al teach the use of rinsing with a neutral pH (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 3). Thus, it is reasonably believed that Boyd et al clearly encompass the use of water for rinsing. Moreover, water is well known to be used for rinsing in the industry, as evidenced by Wang et al (at least [0004], [0014]). It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Boyd et al. to include water, as taught by Wang et al. for purposes of performing the same function of rinsing the substrate surface. Re claims 2, 5, the use of the sensor data indicative pH is disclosed by Boyd et al (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30). Re claims 3, 18, and 22, the limitations are similar to that of claim 1, with the exception of the threshold range of zero and a steady state. The limitations of a zero threshold and steady state are broadly interpreted as the rinse stopping time is determined based on no change in pH. Col. 7-8 bridging of Boyd et al. teach detecting the pH with the sensor, wherein the sensor is in communication with the controller such that rinsing is complete when the pH value is neutral. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the examiner takes the position that once the pH is neutral, there is no change in pH, therefore, the limitations of a zero threshold are met. Additionally, it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to terminate the rinsing when there is no change in pH once the pH is neutral, since Boyd teaches rinsing until a neutral pH is achieved. Re claims 4, 20-21, the limitations are similar to that of claim 1, with the exception of the temperature of the water. Applicant is directed to col. 8, lines 25-30 which teaches that temperature sensors may be used. Re claims 9-10, Boyd et al teach the use of hydrofluoric acid (HF/water) as claimed (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30). Re claim 9, Boyd et al do not limit the process to any specific sequence. Since, the claim is written in the open language “comprising” and therefore does not exclude any additional steps between the recited “cleaning operation” and “the rinsing” and since the processing of semiconductor substrates comprises multiple processing steps including cleaning and rinsing it appears that what is claimed is obvious over the teaching of Boyd et al. Re claim 10, the limitations of a furnace component reads broadly on a wafer. Re claims 24 and 26, the limitations of a furnace component reads broadly on a wafer.
8. Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. (7596886) in view of Wang et al. (US2019/0143481) and further in view of Toshima (US6007675).
Boyd et al. in view of Wang et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of removing the component from the tank after rinsing. Toshima is relied upon to teach it is well known to process wafers by cleaning, rinsing and drying, wherein the wafer is transferred to various modules during each stage (col. 3, lines 25-45). 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 Boyd et al. to include transferring the substrate from the tank after rinsing, as taught by Toshima, in order to perform additional processing of the substrate surface.
9. Claim(s) 23, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. (7596886) in view of Wang et al. (US2019/0143481) and further in view of Li et al. (CN110813936A).
Re claims 23, 25, and 27, Boyd et al. in view of Wang et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of cleaning a furnace tube or a furnace boat. Li et al. teach cleaning the furnace tube by dipping in a cleaning liquid followed by rinsing, wherein the furnace tube is used during semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious and well with the level of the skilled artisan to have modified the modified method of Boyd et al. to clean furnace tubes, as taught by Li et al., for purposes of performing the same function of removing impurities in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness needed for use in the semiconductor processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 6 and 7 directed to: a) filtering the sensor data with a noise filter to produce denoised sensor data over time and determining the moving average and moving mean of the denoised sensor data over time and determining the rinse stopping time based on the moving average or moving mean. Claim 8 is allowable based on its dependency.
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. 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
