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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-11 are pending, claims 4, 5 and 11 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed August 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0206702 to Gosho et al.
As to claims 1 and 10, Gosho discloses a substrate device and substrate processing system comprising: a processing liquid supply configured to supply a processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate (see Gosho Fig. 3, ref.26a; paragraph [0065]); a mass measuring device configured to measure a mass of the substrate (see Gosho Fig. 3 and 10A, ref.#28c and 39c; paragraph [0058], [0132]), a first imaging device configured to acquire a top surface image of the substrate (see Gosho Fig. 13, ref.# 71, 72, paragraph [0157], [0197]), and a controller is configured to perform the following steps: forming a second liquid film by supplying, from the processing liquid supply, a first amount of the processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate (see Gosho Fig. 12, ref.S33; paragraph [0142]; measuring a mass of the second liquid film based on the mass of the substrate measured by the mass measuring device (see Gosho Fig. 12, ref.S31 and S35; paragraphs [0145]); acquiring the top surface image with the first imaging device (see Gosho paragraphs [0154]-[0162]; and determining a state of the second liquid film based on the top surface image when the mass of the second liquid film is equal to or greater than a first threshold (see Gosho paragraphs [0154]-[0166] disclosing the determining a state of the second liquid film based on the image; paragraph [0122]-[0123] where the weight of the liquid film is measured to determine if the amount is normal (read as mass is equal to or greater than a first threshold); see, e.g., claim 12 where the liquid amount is detected then the coating state is detected).
Regarding the recitation “determining whether the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than a second threshold greater than the first threshold and when the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than the second threshold and the determined state of the second film is abnormal, transmitting an instruction to transfer the substrate to a subsequent liquid processing apparatus without additionally supplying the processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate,” Gosho discloses a modified example where when the liquid amount of the liquid film is larger than an upper limit value in a first predetermined range, the substrate processing system increases the exhaust amount of the in the drying process and without regulating the liquid amount of the IPA liquid (see Gosho paragraph [0195]). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that Gosho discloses determining whether the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than a second threshold greater than the first threshold and when the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than the second threshold and the determined state of the second film is abnormal, transmitting an instruction to transfer the substrate to a subsequent liquid processing apparatus without additionally supplying the processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate since Gosho determines whether the liquid film is larger than an upper limit value (i.e., by the mass being greater than a second threshold value) and then proceed to adjust the drying process in the drying unit without regulating the liquid amount of the IPA liquid (understood as transferring substrate to a subsequent liquid processing apparatus (drying) without additionally supplying the processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate (no additional regulation of the liquid amount and so no additional liquid is supplied).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0206702 to Gosho et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0221925 to Ito et al.
Gosho is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 2, while Gosho discloses a nozzle to supply liquid to the bottom of the substrate as well as liquid drain ports (see Gosho Fig. 3 disclosing bottom nozzle 25a and liquid drain ports 23a and 24a), Gosho does not explicitly disclose that a suction mechanism on the drain ports. Ito discloses a similar substrate processing device wherein the liquid drain ports are connected to a suctioning device, such as a suction pump or an ejector (see Ito paragraph [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a suctioning device on the liquid drain ports of Gosho in order to improve the removal of liquid from the device.
As to claim 3, the combination of Gosho and Ito discloses that the measuring of the mass of the second liquid film comprises: measuring a first mass of the substrate including the first liquid film adhering to the top surface and the first liquid film adhering to the bottom surface but not including the second liquid film (see Gosho Fig. 12 step S31 where the weight of the substrate is measured before the forming of the second film and where the weight of the substrate prior to adding the second film would including the weight of the any first film on the top and bottom surfaces of the substrate since the entire substrate mass is measured).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0206702 to Gosho et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0221925 to Ito et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0284071 to Wright.
Gosho and Ito are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 6, while the combination of Gosho and Ito discloses a stage configured to hold the substrate horizontally (see Gosho Fig. 3, ref.#29), Gosho/Ito does not explicitly disclose that the stage has multiple suction holes connected to the suction mechanism. Wright discloses that it is known in the art to have suction holes located in the stage (see Wright paragraph [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include suction holes in the stage as disclosed by Wright in order to be able to rid the wafer stage of any water or other liquid that becomes present in the wafer chuck (see Wright paragraph [0047]).
As to claim 7, the combination of Gosho, Ito and Wright discloses that multiple lift pins can be used to support the substrate with a driving source configured to move the multiple pins up and down with respect to the stage (see Ito paragraphs [0037]-[0038]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0206702 to Gosho et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0407839 to Tsujihashi.
Gosho is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 8, Gosho does not explicitly disclose a second imaging device configured to acquire a bottom surface image of the substrate. Tsujihashi discloses a similar substrate processing device comprising both a top imaging device and a bottom imaging device (see Tsujihashi Fig. 9 disclosing both a top imaging device 410 and a bottom imaging device 510). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a bottom imaging device as disclosed by Tsujihashi to inspect the bottom of the substrate and control the process based on the inspection results as disclosed by Tsujihashi in order to determine if the processing was properly performed (see Tsujihashi paragraph [0004], [0053], [0088]). Furthermore, Gosho discloses changing the processing on the substrate based on the image (see Gosho paragraphs [0104]-[0106], [0173]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the processing on the substrate based on the top and bottom image in order to ensure proper processing of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed in the modified rejection above based on Applicant’s newly added amendments to the claims, regarding the recitation “determining whether the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than a second threshold greater than the first threshold and when the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than the second threshold and the determined state of the second film is abnormal, transmitting an instruction to transfer the substrate to a subsequent liquid processing apparatus without additionally supplying the processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate,” Gosho discloses a modified example where when the liquid amount of the liquid film is larger than an upper limit value in a first predetermined range, the substrate processing system increases the exhaust amount of the in the drying process and without regulating the liquid amount of the IPA liquid (see Gosho paragraph [0195]). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that Gosho discloses determining whether the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than a second threshold greater than the first threshold and when the mass of the second film is equal to or greater than the second threshold and the determined state of the second film is abnormal, transmitting an instruction to transfer the substrate to a subsequent liquid processing apparatus without additionally supplying the processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate since Gosho determines whether the liquid film is larger than an upper limit value (i.e., by the mass being greater than a second threshold value) and then proceed to adjust the drying process in the drying unit without regulating the liquid amount of the IPA liquid (understood as transferring substrate to a subsequent liquid processing apparatus (drying) without additionally supplying the processing liquid to the top surface of the substrate (no additional regulation of the liquid amount and so no additional liquid is supplied).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights