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 .
Claims 9-11 and 13-20 are pending
Claims 9-11 and 14-20 have been amended
Claim 12 has been canceled
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 has been amended to recite “unloading...the substrate from the processing container...cleaning, by the at least one processor, the processing container, by second supplying an antistatic liquid to the substrate, ...the cleaning includes second cleaning, by the at least one processor, the spin chuck and the processing container with the antistatic liquid, the second cleaning including supplying the antistatic liquid ... to the top surface of the spin chuck...following the first cleaning”. The amendments appear to require the same step, the “second supplying” step to supply the antistatic liquid to the substrate and the top surface of the chuck. However, since the substrate covers the top surface of the chuck it is unclear how this is accomplished. And Applicant specification defines the substrate processing to be separate from the cleaning of the processing container. It is unclear what is being required by amended claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK JEONG YEONG et al. KR 20160147164 (KR’164) (machine translation provided used for citation) in view of Miyagi et al. US 2015/0264790 (US’790).
Regarding claim 9, KR’164 teaches a method of processing a substrate (a substrate processing method, abstract), the method comprising:
loading, by at least one processor a substrate loading into a processing space defined by a processing container (the substrate W is placed on the support unit 340, page 5, see fig. 4, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor);
first supplying, by the at least one processor a treatment solution to the substrate while rotating a spin chuck supporting the substrate the processing space (the spin head 342 is rotated at the first rotation speed while supplying the treatment liquid to the upper surface of the substrate, page 6-7, see fig. 4, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor);
unloading, by the at least one processor, the substrate from the processing space following the supplying (the substrate is removed before the cup cleaning step, page 7, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor);
and cleaning, by the least one processor, the processing container, following the unloading (cup cleaning step S200, page 7-8, see fig. 5, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor),
by second supplying a cleaning solution to the spin chuck (The cleaning liquid is directly supplied from the ejection unit 380 to the upper surface of the spin head 342. The cleaning liquid may be ultra-pure water. The supplied cleaning liquid is scattered to the outside of the spin head 342 due to the rotation of the spin head 342. This causes the cup 320 provided outside the spin head 342 to be cleaned, page 7-8, see fig. 5).
KR’164 does not teach third supplying an antistatic liquid to the spin chuck or the processing container following the second supplying, the antistatic liquid being carbon dioxide water.
US’790 teaches a processing liquid supplying apparatus (abstract, see fig. 1). The cup of the apparatus becomes electrostatically charged due to raising and lowering of the cup, Static elimination of the cup upper portion 19 must thus be performed prior to the execution of the processing on the substrate W. The liquid is supplied on the upper surface of the inclined portion 21 is thereby eliminating static of the portion of the charged cup upper portion 19 in contact with the liquid film of DIW (para. 309-314, see fig. 14). If the substrate is a silicon wafer or a glass substrate, the substrate becomes positively charged. If the substrate is charged after a series of processes, breakdown of a device formed on the front surface of the substrate may occur when the charge is discharged. A similar problem may also occur when a processing object is charged even before it is carried into a processing tank. It is therefore required that the rinsing processing (processing using a processing liquid) be performed while achieving charging prevention and static elimination of the substrate (para. 8). KR’164 further includes the height of the cup 320 can be adjusted by the lifting unit 360 (page 8) similar to the method of US’790. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know they could use the method of US’790 to modify the method of KR’164 to include an additional step of cleaning the cup and/or the chuck with antistatic liquid to prevent device breakdown of the processed substrate caused by charge build up. US’790 identified carbonated water as one of only a small set of alternative embodiments for performing the static elimination previously defined as eliminating static of the charged cup and the substrate (para. 563 and 704). KR’164 teaches the cleaning fluid is ultra-pure water, page 7-8. Since KR’164 teaches controller 1000 for controlling the method steps, the combination of KR’164 and US’790 would further include performing all steps by the processor.
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 method of KR’164 to include third supplying an antistatic liquid to the spin chuck or the processing container following the second supplying, the antistatic liquid being carbon dioxide water because US’790 teaches it prevents device breakdown of the processed substrate caused by charge build up and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of KR’164 teaches the substrate cleaning method of claim 9. The modified method of KR’164 further teaches wherein the first supplying includes discharging the antistatic liquid to the substrate (that the antistatic liquid is supplied to the substrate to prevent device breakdown, para. 8-12 and 47-54).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of KR’164 teaches the substrate cleaning method of claim 9. The modified method of KR’164 further teaches wherein the second supplying supplies the cleaning solution from a cleaning solution nozzle, and the third supplying supplies the antistatic liquid from a antistatic liquid nozzle, wherein the cleaning solution nozzle and the antistatic liquid nozzle move (see, fig. 2-7 and pages 5-6 of KR’164 and fig. 12-17 of US’790, the nozzles are located on the end of moving arms).
The modified method of KR’164 does not teach the nozzles are coupled to a discharge head and configured to move together.
However, Both KR’164 and US’790 include movable discharge head carrying nozzles for supplying the fluids to the substrate, chuck and cup (see, fig. 2-7 and pages 5-6 of KR’164 and fig. 12-17 of US’790). Therefore, integrating the nozzles for performing the multi-step cleaning process of the modified method of KR’164 would be an obvious combination of prior art elements.
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 modified method of KR’164 to include the nozzles are coupled to a discharge head and configured to move together because both KR’164 and US’790 include movable discharge head carrying nozzles for supplying the fluids to the substrate, chuck and cup and making these nozzle integral with each other would be a matter of obvious engineering choice absent any new or unexpected results see MPEP 2144.04 V.B.
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of KR’164 teaches the substrate cleaning method of claim 9. The modified method of KR’164 further teaches wherein the antistatic liquid has specific resistivity lower than the cleaning solution, with regard to claim 13 (US’790 teaches carbonated water can be used as the antistatic liquid, para. 563 and 704 and KR’164 teaches the cleaning fluid is ultra-pure water, page 7-8, the resistivity of carbonated water is lower than pure water)
Regarding claims 14, the modified method of KR’164 teaches the substrate cleaning method of claim 9. The modified method of KR’164 further teaches wherein the third supply supplies such that, a top end of the processing container is located at a position higher than a position at which the substrate is supported (see fig. 20-21, para. 382-394, 699, of US’790 the modified method of KR’164 includes static elimination of the cup include all surface of the cup).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of KR’164 teaches the substrate cleaning method of claim 9. The modified method of KR’164 further teaches wherein the third supplying supplies such that, the cleaning solution is scattered to an inner surface of the processing container by rotation of the spin chuck, while the processing container is repeatedly raised and lowered. (see fig. 20-21, para. 382-394, 699 of US’790 the modified method of KR’164 includes static elimination of the cup include all surface of the cup. KR’164 further teaches the height of the cup 320 can be adjusted by the lifting unit 360. The relative height of the upper end of the cup 320 with respect to the upper surface of the spin head 342 can be adjusted while moving the cup 320 up and down in the cup cleaning step S200. The area to be cleaned can be selected and cleaned in the cup 320. The height of the upper end of the collection container to be cleaned among the plurality of collection containers of the cup 320 can be adjusted. For example, when the cleaning liquid or gas is supplied to the upper surface of the spin head 342, the height of the upper end of the recovery cylinder to be cleaned can be made equal to the height of the upper surface of the spin head 342. The cup cleaning step will be described with reference to Figs. In Fig. 5, the arrow of the drive shaft 348 is shown larger than the arrow in Fig. 4, which indicates that the rotation speed of the spin head in the cup cleaning step S200. Thus, as shown in FIGS. 8-10, the area of the cup 320 can be selectively cleaned, page 7-8, see fig. 8-9).
Regarding claims 16-18, the modified method of KR’164 teaches the substrate cleaning method of claim 9. The modified method of KR’164 further teaches wherein the third supplying supplies such that a top end of the processing container is located at a position lower than a position where the substrate is supported, when the substrate is being supported by the spin chuck with regard to claim 16, wherein the third supplying supplies the antistatic liquid to be discharged from a top portion of the spin chuck, with regard to claim 17 and wherein the third supplying supplies such that the antistatic liquid is discharged to a top end of the processing container, with regard to claim 18 (US’790 teaches the top surface of the cup is treated with the antistatic liquid, see fig. 14, para. 309-312 and KR’164 teaches that the cleaning liquid can be supplied to the cup by supplying the liquid first to the chuck to scatter it to the cup surface, as discussed above. Therefore, the combination of KR’164 and US’790 would include supplying the antistatic liquid to a top of the processing container by lowering the container to scatter the liquid from the chuck).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method of KR’164 teaches the substrate cleaning method of claim 9. KR’164 further teaches rotating, by the at least one processor, the spin chuck while an airflow is formed around the spin chuck and the processing container to dry the spin chuck and the processing container. (the step of spraying the gas onto the upper surface of the spin head 342 and drying the cup, the spin head 342 can be rotated at a third rotation speed, page 6-8)
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK JEONG YEONG et al. KR 20160147164 (KR’164) (machine translation provided used for citation) in view of Miyagi et al. US 2015/0264790 (US’790).
Regarding claim 20, KR’164 teaches a method of processing a substrate (a substrate processing method, abstract), the method comprising: transferring, by at least one processor, a substrate onto a spin chuck in a processing container (the substrate W is placed on the support unit 340, page 5, see fig. 4, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor); first supplying, by the at least one processor, the substrate with a treatment solution (the spin head 342 is rotated at the first rotation speed while supplying the treatment liquid to the upper surface of the substrate, page 6-7, see fig. 4, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor); unloading, by the at least one processor, the substrate from the processing container (the substrate is removed before the cup cleaning step, page 7, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor); and cleaning, by the at least one processor, the processing container, the cleaning solution being pure water, the cleaning including first cleaning, by the at least one processor, the spin chuck and the processing container with the cleaning solution the first cleaning including supplying the cleaning solution to a top surface of the spin chuck as the spin chuck is rotated in a state where a top end of the processing container is located higher than the top surface of the spin chuck (The cleaning liquid is directly supplied from the ejection unit 380 to the upper surface of the spin head 342. The cleaning liquid may be ultra-pure water. The supplied cleaning liquid is scattered to the outside of the spin head 342 due to the rotation of the spin head 342. This causes the cup 320 provided outside the spin head 342 to be cleaned, page 7-8, see fig. 5, controller 1000 controls the operation of the method, page 4-6, see fig. 1, therefore, controller 1000 reads on a processor).
KR’164 does not teach by second supplying an antistatic liquid to the substrate from a discharge head mounted with a cleaning solution nozzle and an antistatic liquid nozzle, respectively, and the antistatic liquid being carbon dioxide water, and second cleaning, by the at least one processor, the spin chuck and the processing container with the antistatic liquid, the second cleaning including supplying the antistatic liquid such that the top end of the processing container is located lower than the top surface of the spin chuck, and the antistatic liquid is supplied from the antistatic liquid nozzle to the top surface of the spin chuck or the top end of the processing container following the first cleaning.
US’790 teaches a processing liquid supplying apparatus (abstract, see fig. 1). The cup of the apparatus becomes electrostatically charged due to raising and lowering of the cup, Static elimination of the cup upper portion 19 must thus be performed prior to the execution of the processing on the substrate W. An antistatic liquid is supplied to the substrate to prevent device breakdown (para. 8-12 and 47-54) and also to the upper surface, inclined portion 21, of the cup, thereby eliminating static of the charged cup and the substrate (para. 309-314, see fig. 14). US’790 identified carbonated water as one of only a small set of alternative embodiments for performing the static elimination previously defined as eliminating static of the charged cup and the substrate (para. 563 and 704). If the substrate is charged after a series of processes, breakdown of a device formed on the front surface of the substrate may occur when the charge is discharged. A similar problem may also occur when a processing object is charged even before it is carried into a processing tank. It is therefore required that the rinsing processing (processing using a processing liquid) be performed while achieving charging prevention and static elimination of the substrate (para. 8). KR’164 further includes the height of the cup 320 can be adjusted by the lifting unit 360 (page 8) similar to the method of US’790. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know they could use the method of US’790 to modify the method of KR’164 to include an additional step of cleaning the top of the cup with antistatic liquid and supplying the same antistatic liquid to the substrate chuck and the substrate to prevent device breakdown of the processed substrate caused by charge build up. Both KR’164 and US’790 include discharge head carrying nozzles for supplying fluid to the substrate, chuck and cup (see, fig. 2-7 and pages 5-6 of KR’164 and fig. 12-17 of US’790). Therefore, integrating the nozzles for performing the cleaning process would be an obvious combination of prior art elements. Since KR’164 performs the cup cleaning after the substrate is unloaded, integrating US’790’s cup static elimination into the process flow of KR’164 would include locating the static elimination step between wafer processing, and before the next wafer is carried in (see para. 596 of US’790) which reads on the antistatic liquid is supplied from the antistatic liquid nozzle to the top surface of the spin chuck or the top end of the processing container following the first cleaning. Since KR’164 teaches controller 1000 for controlling the method steps, the combination of KR’164 and US’790 would further include performing all steps by the processor.
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 method of KR’164 to include y second supplying an antistatic liquid to the substrate from a discharge head mounted with a cleaning solution nozzle and an antistatic liquid nozzle, respectively, and the antistatic liquid being carbon dioxide water, and second cleaning, by the at least one processor, the spin chuck and the processing container with the antistatic liquid, the second cleaning including supplying the antistatic liquid such that the top end of the processing container is located lower than the top surface of the spin chuck, and the antistatic liquid is supplied from the antistatic liquid nozzle to the top surface of the spin chuck or the top end of the processing container following the first cleaning because US’790 teaches it prevents device breakdown of the processed substrate caused by charge build up and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C), and because both KR’164 and US’790 include movable discharge head carrying nozzles for supplying the fluids to the substrate, chuck and cup and making these nozzle integral with each other would be a matter of obvious engineering choice absent any new or unexpected results see MPEP 2144.04 V.B.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 11 and 20 to incorporate subject matter of a processor and further defining the processing liquids into claims 11 and 20 has changed the scope of claims 11 and 20. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 103 as obvious over KR’164 in view of US’790 which includes both the rejection of claims 11 and 20 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 3-27-26 and further discussion of the teachings of KR’164 and US’790 relevant to subject matter incorporated into claims 11 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-12-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument that US’790 teaches carbonated water only for a processing fluid (on wafer), but not for clean cup 19, has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. US’790 discloses a dedicated cub static elimination arrangement in which a first cup nozzle 224, mounted on the downstream end of the first branch piping 222, discharges liquid from its discharge port 224A directed toward the outer wall, i.e., the upper surface of the inclined portion 21, of cup upper portion 19 (para. 306). The controller 40 opens the branch valve 225 so that the liquid is discharged into the inclined portion 21 to form a liquid film that performs static elimination of the charged cup upper portion 19 (para 311-314, see fig. 14). This cup cleaning is needed because cup upper portion 19 becomes charged by being raised and lowered by the cup raising and lowering unit 22 so static elimination of cup upper portion 19 must be performed (para. 309). The liquid discharged from cup nozzle discharge port 224A is irradiated with soft X-rays (para. 310-314). For the first through fourteenth preferred embodiments, “DIW was cited as an example of water irradiated with soft X-rays and discharged from the discharge port, the water is not restricted to DIW and any of carbonated water may be adopted as the water”. The cup static elimination arrangement (apparatus 221, cup nozzle 224) is one of the those preferred embodiments, and its liquid is water irradiated with soft X-rays discharged from a discharge port. US’790 therefore explicitly suggests carbonated water as the liquid supplied to cup upper portion 19, contrary to Applicants statement. Para. 563 of US’270 further confirms the same interchangeability of carbonated water as the water used. Carbonated water is thus not confined to an on-wafer processing fluid. US’790 presents it as an interchangeable water for the discharge ports generally, including the cup nozzle used to clean and de-static cup upper portion 19.
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights