DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 04/28/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
A request for a copy of foreign priority application has been made to the PDX program as the foreign priority document is not in the file.
Applicant must supply a copy of foreign priority to the file.
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 I: Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A29-17 in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0139760 (henceforth referred to as Tsubota) in view of Jae et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0186379 (henceforth referred to as Jae).
As to claim 9, Tsubota teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a processing chamber including a processing space (FIG. 1 paragraph [0021] a process chamber 201 defined by the process vessel 203);
a substrate support configured to receive a substrate and support the substrate in the processing chamber (paragraph [0030] substrate support 400);
wherein the processing chamber comprises a step portion (See following Figure 1) and a round portion on an upper surface that defines the processing space (FIG. 1 there is a rounded portion on an upper edge of the chamber), and wherein the step portion is vertically aligned with an edge of the substrate.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
152
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A step portion that is vertically aligned with the edge of the substrate)]
Tsubota differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a fluid supply pipe arranged at a lower portion of the processing chamber; and a fluid supply device configured to supply a processing fluid to the processing space through the fluid supply pipe.
Jae teaches a similar substrate processing apparatus (paragraph [0063] supercritical processing apparatuses 500). Jae teaches
a fluid supply pipe arranged at a lower portion of the processing chamber (FIG. 3 paragraph [0072] first supply port 566a supplies the supercritical fluid into the vessel 520.); and a fluid supply device configured to supply a processing fluid to the processing space through the fluid supply pipe (paragraph [0076] fluid supply unit 560).
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 substrate processing apparatus as taught by Tsubota with a processing fluid that flows from a lower portion of the processing chamber. Having a processing fluid flow into the processing space from a lower portion of the processing chamber is known in the art and one of the various embodiments in which a processing fluid can enter a treatment space.
As to claim 10, Tsubota further teaches the step portion contacts the round portion (FIG. 1 the round portion contacts the step portion).
As to claim 11, Tsubota further teaches the step portion has an angle of about 90° with respect to the upper surface (FIG. 1 the step portion has an angle of about 90° with respect to the upper surface).
As to claim 12, Tsubota further teaches the processing chamber comprises an upper body and a lower body (FIG. 1 paragraph [0021] upper vessel 210 and a bowl-shaped lower vessel 211), and wherein the upper body is configured to be coupled to the lower body to cover a space provided by the lower body (paragraph [0021] by covering the lower vessel 211 with the upper vessel 210, the process chamber 201 is defined).
As to claim 13, Tsubota further teaches the upper body has a symmetrical shape with respect to a center axis of the upper body (FIG. 1 the upper body has a symmetrical shape with respect to the center axis of the upper body).
As to claim 14, Jae further teaches in the processing space, a center of turbulence generated by high pressure inflow of the processing fluid is formed at a location spaced away from the edge of the substrate (FIG. 5 the processing fluid entering the first supply port 566a is at a location spaced away from the edge of the substrate).
As to claim 17, Jae further teaches the processing fluid flows into the processing space via a lower portion of the substrate support (FIG. 3 paragraph [0072] first supply port 566a supplies the supercritical fluid into the vessel 520. The first supply port 566a is on the lower portion of the substrate support.)
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0139760 (henceforth referred to as Tsubota) and Jae et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0186379 (henceforth referred to as Jae) as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Kai et al. U.S. Patent 11,508,589 (henceforth referred to as Kai).
As to claim 15, Tsubota and Jae differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a diameter of the substrate support is less than a diameter of the substrate.
Kai teaches a substrate processing apparatus (column 3 line 66-67 developing apparatus 1). Kai teaches a diameter of the substrate support is less than a diameter of the substrate (FIG. 1 column 4 line 16 spin chuck 11 reads on the claimed substrate support. Spin chuck 11 has a diameter less than a diameter of the substrate).
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 substrate processing apparatus as taught by Tsubota and Jae with a substrate support that is smaller than a substrate as taught by Kai. By having a smaller substrate support, the back surface of the substrate could be treated.
As to claim 16, Tsubota and Jae differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the substrate comprises an exposed extreme ultra-violet (EUV) photoresist pattern.
Kai teaches a substrate processing apparatus (column 3 line 66-67 developing apparatus 1). Kai teaches the substrate comprises an exposed extreme ultra-violet (EUV) photoresist pattern (column 4 lines 6-7 wafer W has a resist film for EUV (Extreme UltraViolet) exposure formed thereon).
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 substrate processing apparatus as taught by Tsubota and Jae with a EUV photoresist pattern as taught by Kai. It is known in the art to have an exposed extreme ultra-violet (EUV) photoresist pattern and it would have been obvious that the apparatus can process a wafer with an extreme ultra-violet (EUV) photoresist pattern. Furthermore, a wafer having extreme ultra-violet (EUV) photoresist pattern is intended use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights