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 1-12 and 17-20 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.
Claims 1 and 17 are indefinite because it is unclear whether the flushing chemical is circulated and drained from each tank. Additionally, it is unclear whether the liquid exchange exchanges the flushing chemical with the new chemical for at least one of the first, second and third tanks. Re claim 4 and 18 are indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider a “relatively longer”. Re claims 5 and 19 are indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as “relatively larger”. Claims 5 and 19 are indefinite because “the amount” lacks positive antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwama (JP08-102457A; machine translation).
Re claim 1, Iwama teaches a chemical liquid exchange (page 1, paragraph 57) comprising a liquid treating device (Fig. 1, element 1) comprising a plurality of tanks (page 2, claims 1 and 6 recite a plurality of one or more chemical tanks and one or more rinsing tanks). Paragraph 6 further teaches a draining operation of draining the old chemical solution (i.e. discharging the old chemical solution), injecting a flushing chemical into each tank (i.e. the inside of the tank is cleaned), and the new chemical solution is introduced. Paragraph 9 teaches introducing pure water into the chemical bath from which the chemical has been discharged to clean the inside of the bath with pure water, and introducing a new chemical liquid (paragraph 14). Paragraphs 18 and 20 further teaches automatic and manual mode of optimally replacing the chemical solution. Re claim 11, Iwama teaches flushing with pure water (paragraph 11) and further teaches replacing the tank with a new chemical comprising water (paragraph 32 teaches an SC-1 solution of a mixed solution of ammonium water and oxygenated water).
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) 2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwama (JP08-102457A; machine translation).
Re claim 2, Iwama do not reach setting the drain time, and the flushing chemical injection and circulation operation in each tank to be different, and when the flushing chemical injected reaches a lifetime, draining the flushing chemical. However, paragraph 5 teaches when the contamination in the tank has progressed to such an extent that it becomes difficult the clean, the entire chemical solution is replaced. Further, paragraph 5 further teaches that the cleaning liquid will be deteriorated over time upon mixing with other liquid, and in such a case, the entire chemical liquid needs to be replaced. It appears applicant's claim is directed to adjusting the processing parameters directed to when the chemical is being replaced. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, 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 method of Iwama to include adjusting processing parameters , such as the drain time, and draining the flushing chemical once it has reached its lifetime since Iwama teaches that once the cleaning liquid has been deteriorated over time, replacement is required, wherein the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the drain time to be dependent on the volume of cleaning liquid being used. Re claims 4-5, Iwama do not teach varying the flushing times and amount of flushing chemical for each of the tanks. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, 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 method of Iwama to adjust processing parameters, such as the flushing time and the amount of the flushing chemical, depending upon the level of contaminants/impurities found in the tank. Re claims 6-7, absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to repeatedly flush the tank before the lifetime of the chemical has been reached in order to reduce the level of impurities adhering to the wafer surface during processing with the chemical solution.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwama (JP08-102457A; machine translation) in view of Park et al. (US2025/0153122A1).
Re claim 3, the limitations are directed to storing fluids in different tanks depending upon its usage. Park et al. teach a chemical liquid exchange method includes recovering a first chemical in a first recycling tank, recovering a second portion of the first chemical by a second recycling tank (abstract), receiving a second chemical from an outside to a second sub-tank, wherein the second chemical liquid is transferred to a main tank 230 for processing of the substrate in the chamber 300 (abstract; Fig. 1). Additionally, applicant is directed to the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Park , wherein the chemical used in the processing unit is recovered and stored in the first tank 110, the chemical provided from the first tank is stored in the second tank 210, and the chemical supplied to the processing unit 300 is provided from the second tank 210 and stored in the third tank 230. The prior art of Park et al. is relied upon to teach storing fluids in different tanks depending upon its usage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to have modified the method of Iwama to include storing fluids in different tanks, as taught by Park et al. for purposes of performing different functions such as recovery and for use in processing the substrate. Re claim 12, refer to the embodiment of Fig. 1 and paragraph 46 of Park et al. wherein a new chemical (i.e. second chemical liquid 30) is supplied only to second tank (220) and the third tank 230, excluding the first tank 110. Re claim 17, the limitations are a combination of claims 1-3, which are previously rejected for the reasons recited above. Re claims 18-19, Iwama do not teach varying the flushing times and amount of flushing chemical for each of the tanks. Absent of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, 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 method of Iwama to adjust processing parameters, such as the flushing time and the amount of the flushing chemical, depending upon the level of contaminants/impurities found in the tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the limitations of claim 8. Claims 9-10 are dependent on claim 8. Claim 20 includes the limitations of claims 8-9 and 11-12.
Response to Amendment
Applicant argues that the restriction requirement was improper because claims 13-16 were previously cancelled in the Preliminary Amendment of 11/14/2024. As indicated in the interview of 3/9/2026, the restriction was withdrawn and the Non-Final Action of 4/6/2026 is based on pending claims 1-12 and 17-20. Furthermore, the Non-Final Action did not include a Restriction Requirement since claims 13-16 were cancelled by the Preliminary Amendment. Applicant has not presented any arguments directed to the rejections presented in the Non-Final of 4/6/2026, with only Applicant's request for allowance of all the pending claims.
The rejections, as presented above, are maintained for the reasons set forth above.
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
17. 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
Prosecution Insights