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
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/2026.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 101469548).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2: Lee teaches a manufacturing method comprising:
a substrate loading operation of loading a substrate into a liquid treating chamber (pg. 2, ninth full paragraphs);
a liquid treating operation of supplying a treatment solution to the substrate rotating in the liquid treating chamber through a nozzle (pg. 2, tenth full paragraph);
a substrate unloading operation of unloading the substrate from the liquid treating chamber (inherently disclosed as the steps are directed to cleaning and drying the substrate, see abstract); and
a pressure control operation of changing a pressure of a space above the substrate to be lowered at least one time in a period between the substrate loading operation and the substrate unloading operation (pg. 4, first and second full paragraphs).
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.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101469548, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 3: Lee teaches the elements of Claim 2 as discussed above. Though Lee does not expressly disclose a control releasing operation of increasing the pressure of the space above the substrate that was lowered in the pressure control operation, Lee does teach that by controlling the air introduced into the chamber by the regulating portion, the chamber pressure can be raised and lowered in order to keep the chamber clean and help remove remaining substances such as stains, particles, and the like from the wafer (pg. 4, fifth full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee by increasing the pressure of the space above the substrate that was lowered in the pressure control operation in order to assist in particle removal, as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 6: Lee further teaches the pressure control operation includes disposing a blocking plate (element 32) in the space above the substrate to block downflow supplied to the space above the substrate to cause the pressure to be lowered (pg. 3, fifth full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7: Lee teaches the elements of Claim 6 as discussed above. Though he doesn’t expressly disclose the control releasing operation is performed after the pressure control operation and before the substrate unloading operation, Lee teaches that the chamber pressure can be raised and lowered in order to keep the chamber clean and help remove remaining substances such as stains, particles, and the like from the wafer (pg. 4, fifth full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by performing the pressure control before unloading the substrate in order to remove particles before subsequent processing.
Regarding Claims 8: Lee teaches the elements of Claim 6 as discussed above. Lee does not expressly disclose the control releasing operation is performed after the pressure control operation and after the substrate unloading operation. However, Lee teaches that pressure regulation portion reduced the pressure only during the time of drying (see pg. 5, claims). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee by performing the increasing pressure after the substrate unloading operation in order to prepare the chamber for subsequent substrates and processing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101469548, machine translation referenced herein) and further in view of Yukitsugu (JP 2020009800, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 9: Lee teaches the elements of Claim 8 as discussed above. Lee does not expressly disclose the blocking plate is disposed at a height equal to or higher than an entrance opening such that at least a portion of the downflow collides with the blocking plate and is directed toward the entrance opening for the substate provided in the liquid treating chamber. Yukitsugu teaches a blocking plate (element 51) that is disposed over a substrate beneath a fan filter unit in a processing chamber, and teaches that the blocking plate is movable to a position to prevent contamination of the upper substrate surface (pg. 10). Since the blocking plate blocks the downflow air from the FFU, it is reasonably expected that the airflow is redirected toward the entrance opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee with a blocking plate disposed at a height equal or higher than an entrance opening in order to prevent contamination on the substrate as suggested by Yukitsugu.
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101469548, machine translation referenced herein) and further in view Kawasaki et al. (KR 102013011005, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 10: Lee teaches a substrate processing method comprising:
a liquid treating operation of supplying an organic solvent to a substrate rotating in a liquid treating chamber pg. 2, tenth full paragraph);
wherein a pressure control operation of reducing a pressure in a space above the substrate loaded into the liquid treating chamber at least one time during a period between loading of the substrate into the liquid treating chamber and unloading of the substrate from the liquid treating chamber (pg. 4, first and second full paragraphs).
Lee does not expressly disclose a transfer operation of transferring the substrate on which the organic solvent is residual from the liquid treating chamber to a drying chamber; and a drying operation of supplying a supercritical fluid from the drying chamber to the substrate, and removing the organic solvent residual on the substrate. However, Kawasaki teaches a substrate processing method comprising these steps to enhance the drying of the substrate (pg. 4, fifth full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee by transferring the substrate to a supercritical drying chamber in order to dully dry the substrate as suggested by Kawasaki.
Regarding Claim 11: Lee and Kawasaki teach the elements of Claim 10 as discussed above. Though Lee does not expressly disclose a control releasing operation of increasing the pressure of the space above the substrate that was lowered in the pressure control operation, Lee does teach that by controlling the air introduced into the chamber by the regulating portion, the chamber pressure can be raised and lowered in order to keep the chamber clean and help remove remaining substances such as stains, particles, and the like from the wafer (pg. 4, fifth full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lee by increasing the pressure of the space above the substrate that was lowered in the pressure control operation in order to assist in particle removal, as suggested by Lee.
Regarding Claim 14: Lee further teaches the control releasing operation is performed before the substrate is unloaded and the pressure control operation includes disposing a blocking plate (element 32) in the space above the substrate to block downflow supplied to the space above the substrate to cause the pressure to be lowered (pg. 3, fifth full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 15: Lee further teaches the organic solvent is isopropyl alcohol (pg. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights