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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/26/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
No explanation of relevance has been provided for NPL Document 1 “Korean Office Action issued in corresponding KR Patent Application No 10-2023-0148373, dated January 2, 2025, pp. 1-5”.
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 10-12 and 16-17 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.
The claims are indefinite because the term “the discharge section” in claim 10 lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claims are further indefinite and could not be properly understood because it is not clear from claim 10 how “information” can include “a first discharge section discharging the treatment solution” and “a second discharge section discharging the treatment solution”.
The claims are further indefinite and could not be properly understood because it is not clear from claim 10 how “the discharge section” can be switched from “the first discharge section” to “the second discharge section”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/018481.
WO 2017/018481 teaches a method as claimed.
The method comprises:
rotating a substrate W positioned within a collection cup 80, 50; and
liquid treating the substrate by supplying a treatment solution onto the substrate rotated within the collection cup.
WO 2017/018481 also teaches changing a relative height between the substrate and the collection cup in accordance with treatment solution flow rate.
See at least Figures 2-5 and the related description.
Changing the height of the collection cup depending from the flow rate is disclosed at least by the description of WO 2017/018481 directed to the Figure 5:
“FIG. 5 shows the mist guard 80 at the high position HG. The mist guard 80 is supplied to the rotating wafer W from the nozzles (the SC1 nozzle 411, the AS nozzle 412, the DHF nozzle 413, the first DIW nozzle 414, the SC2 nozzle 418, the second DIW nozzle 419, etc.) when at the high position HG. This is the position for most effectively preventing the processing liquid (shown by broken line arrows in FIG. 5) scattered after the wafer W from reaching the inner wall of the chamber 20. The desirable height of the high position HG of the mist guard 80 varies depending on the number of rotations of the wafer W and the processing liquid supply conditions (flow rate, etc.) on the surface of the wafer W, and is preferably determined by experiments. As an example, the height of the uppermost portion of the mist guard 80 at the high position HG is 60 mm higher than the height of the surface of the wafer W. When the mist guard 80 is positioned at the high position HG, as shown in FIG. 4A, it corresponds to any of the nozzles (nozzles 411 to 417) located at the above-mentioned proximity positions. In FIG. The discharge port (indicated by reference numeral NP in FIG. 4) is located at a position lower than the inner peripheral end of the overhang portion 82 of the mist guard 80, and the nozzle arm (Corresponds to any one of 421, 422, and 423. In FIG. Note that the appropriate height of the high position HG of the mist guard 80 varies depending on the number of rotations of the wafer W and the supply conditions (flow rate, etc.) of the processing liquid onto the surface of the wafer W. Is preferably determined.”
As to claim 13:
The collection cup with plurality of collection containers as claimed is shown at least on Figures 2 and 5 of WO 2017/018481.
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.
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.
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) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/018481.
As to claim 14:
WO 2017/018481 as applied above does not specifically teach increasing the height of the collection cup when the flow rate increases.
However, since WO 2017/018481 teaches that the desirable height of the position of the cup varies depending on the number of rotations of the wafer W and the processing liquid supply conditions (flow rate, etc.) on the surface of the wafer W, and is preferably determined by experiments, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum position of the cup by routine experimentation depending from the variables indicated by WO 2017/018481.
As to claim 15:
WO 2017/018481 as applied above does not specifically teach the recited distances (heights) as claimed.
However, since WO 2017/018481 teaches that the desirable height of the position of the cup varies depending on the number of rotations of the wafer W and the processing liquid supply conditions (flow rate, etc.) on the surface of the wafer W, and is preferably determined by experiments, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum position of the cup by routine experimentation depending from the variables indicated by WO 2017/018481.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2017/018481.
The discussion of WO 2017/018481 provided above is incorporated here.
The claims 10-12 and 16-17 are indefinite and could not be properly understood because of the reasons provided above.
In view of indefiniteness of the claims it is reasonably believed that what is claimed is either anticipated by or is obvious over the teaching of WO 2017/018481.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to methods of treatment of the substrates in apparatuses with collection cups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights