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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi et al. (US 2015/0052702, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2007/0130716).
Regarding Claims 13 and 18: Dobashi teaches a substrate cleaning device comprising:
a substrate holder (Fig. 2, element 32) configured to hold a substrate;
a nozzle (element 6) configured to inject a gas to the substrate held by the substrate holder;
a gas supply (element 76, CO2) configured to supply a cluster forming gas (element 200) for forming a cluster by adiabatic expansion (see abstract) by being injected from the nozzle and a carrier gas (element 77, He) having a smaller molecular weight or atomic weight than the cluster forming gas to the nozzle; and
a gas supply controller (element 9) configured to control the gas supply, wherein the gas supply controller performs: supplying a gas mixture of the cluster forming gas and the carrier gas to the nozzle [0058].
Dobashi does not expressly disclose the controller configured to perform continuously supplying the carrier gas to the nozzle for a set time period from an end time at which a supply of the cluster forming gas to the nozzle ends. However, the claim language reads on having a controller configured to flush the nozzle with the carrier gas. Yamada teaches a controller for a substrate processing system which performs flushing a flow path of a nozzle to remove the chemical liquid remaining in the flow path [0027-0031]. 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 device of Dobashi with a controller configured to perform supplying the carrier gas for a set time period after the end of the cluster forming gas supply ends in order to flush the nozzle as suggested by Yamada.
Regarding Claim 14: Dobashi and Yamada teach the elements of Claim 13 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose the gas supply controller further performs supplying the carrier gas at the first flow rate when supplying the gas mixture and at the second higher flow rate during the set time period. However, 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 device of Dobashi and Yamada with a controller configured to supply the carrier gas at a higher flow rate in order to quickly flush the nozzle, for example.
Regarding Claim 17: Yamada further teaches a drive (element 29) configured to relatively move the nozzle and the substrate holder and a relative position controller configured to control the drive [0011] and set a relative position of the nozzle and substrate holder to a position where the gas is injected from the nozzle toward the substrate held by the substrate holder during the set time period [0046].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi et al. (US 2015/0052702 and Yamada et al. (US 2007/0130716) as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Knauer et al. (WO 88/06637).
Regarding Claim 15: Dobashi and Yamada teach the elements of Claim 13 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose a heater configured to heat the nozzle and a heater controller configured to stop heating the nozzle during the supply of the gas mixture and heat the nozzle during the set time period. However, Knauer teaches conditioning the clusters to a liquid state after formation (pg. 5, ll. 30-35). Knauer further teaches heating the clusters with a heating source to a temperature wherein crystallinity vanishes and the clusters are in a liquid state (pg. 6). 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 device of Dobashi and Yamada with a heater for heating the nozzle for the purpose of changing the clusters to a liquid state after formation. Further, 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 prior art with a controller configured to stop heating the nozzle by the heater during the gas mixture supply in order to allow for condensation to occur and the formation of clusters. Additionally, 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 prior art to configure the controller to heat the nozzle while supplying the carrier gas in order to convert the clusters into a liquid state such that the flow path of the nozzle is flushed with the carrier gas.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobashi et al. (US 2015/0052702 and Yamada et al. (US 2007/0130716) as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Koike et al. (JP 2013046001, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 16: Dobashi and Yamada teach the elements of Claim 15 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose a coolant supply and a coolant supply controller configured to control the coolant supply to supply the coolant to the nozzle during the gas mixture supply and stop the supply during the set time period. However, Koike teaches a device for generating reactive clusters by ejecting mixing gas into a process chamber from a nozzle outlet by adiabatic expansion while cooling by a cooling source in a mixed gas supply path of the nozzle outlet (see abstract). Koike teaches a coolant supply to form gas cluster (see abstract). 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 device of Dobashi and Yamada with a coolant supply configured to regulate the temperature of the nozzle by supplying coolant to the nozzle and a controller configured to control the coolant supply to supply the coolant to the nozzle during the gas mixture supply in order to generate clusters, and stop the supply of coolant such that the carrier gas can flush and remove the gas mixture from the flow path of the nozzle.
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