DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/22/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are currently pending. Claims 10-15 are cancelled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4, 6-10 shows that port 443 is connected to pipe 453, whereas the Specification paragraph [74] states that the inlet port 443 is connected with liquid pipe 452. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 and 20 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third valve" in lines 12, and 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the third valve and the intake valve are the same valve.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the third valve" in lines 12, and 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the third valve and the intake valve are the same valve.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang).
As to claim 1, (Original) Lee teaches an apparatus for treating a substrate, the apparatus comprising:
a process chamber for treating a substrate with a treatment solution (paragraph [0045] a process chamber 260);
a treatment solution supply pipe for supplying a liquid used for a liquid treatment to the process chamber (FIGS. 3 and 10 paragraph [0054] and [0085] processing unit 380 supplies the processing liquid to the substrate W via transfer line 470);
a mixing unit connected to the treatment solution supply pipe and having a mixing space formed therein (paragraph [0059] tank 410 has an internal space 412, which would read on a mixing unit having a mixing space);
a first liquid pipe for supplying a first liquid to the mixing space (FIG. 10 paragraph [0061] first liquid supply line 420);
a second liquid pipe for supplying a second liquid to the mixing space (FIG. 10 paragraph [0066] a second liquid supply line 430);
an intake pipe for decompressing the mixing space (paragraph [0084] a circulation line 460 may be provided with a pump 462 that provides pressure reduction to the internal space);
a first valve for regulating the supply of the first liquid to the mixing space (paragraph [0061] first liquid valve 427);
a second valve for regulating the supply of the second liquid to the mixing space (paragraph [0066] second liquid valve 437);
wherein the mixing unit includes a body including the mixing space, and a first inlet port (paragraph [0063] first liquid discharge port 424), a second inlet port (paragraph [0068] a second liquid discharge port 434), a third inlet port, and an outlet port connected with the mixing space (FIG. 10 circulation line 460 and transfer line 470 to connect with the mixing space, which means that there are ports on the tank 410),
the outlet port is connected with the treatment solution supply pipe (FIG. 10 paragraph [0085] transfer line 470 delivers the processing liquid to the processing unit 380. In order for the transfer line 470 to receive the liquid, there must be a port on tank 410),
the first inlet port is connected with the first liquid pipe (FIG. 10 paragraph [0063] a first liquid discharge port 424 can supply the liquid flowing in the first liquid supply line 420 to the tank 410),
the second inlet port is connected with the second liquid pipe (FIG. 10 paragraph [0068] a second liquid discharge port 434 can supply the liquid flowing the second liquid supply line 430 to the tank 410), and
the third inlet port is connected with the intake pipe (FIG. 10 a port on the tank 410 is connected to the pipe 460).
Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach an intake valve for regulating whether to decompress the mixing space.
Jiang teaches a substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [n0001] wafer chemical processing apparatus). Jiang teaches an intake valve for regulating whether to decompress the mixing space (paragraph [n0046] the opening of the intake control valve 53 can be increased or decreased in order to reach the target pressure).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with an intake valve as taught by Jiang. It is known in the art to install a valve where a flow needs to be controlled. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to install a valve in order to control the pressure in the system.
As to claim 2, (Original) Lee further teaches the second inlet port is disposed closer to the outlet port than the first inlet port (FIG. 10 port 434 is closer to the outlet port).
As to claim 3, (Original) Lee and Jiang do not teach the first inlet port is disposed further from the outlet port than the second inlet port and the third inlet port.
However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang) as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Inada et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0277793 (henceforth referred to as Inada).
As to claim 4, (Original) Lee and Jiang differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the second liquid pipe or a second liquid supply source in which the second liquid is stored, a heater for heating the second liquid is installed, and the third inlet port is provided between the first inlet port and the second inlet port.
Inada teaches a similar substrate treating apparatus (FIG. 2 paragraph [0056] substrate processing chamber 15). Inada teaches the second liquid pipe or a second liquid supply source in which the second liquid is stored, a heater for heating the second liquid is installed (FIG. 2 paragraph [0061] heater 57. Heater 57 is only on one liquid line).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee and Jiang with a heater as taught by Inada. It is known in the art to install a heater on a fluid line/source to heat the fluid within the line/source.
Lee and Jiang do not teach that the third inlet port is provided between the first inlet port and the second inlet port.
However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kaneko et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0125368 (henceforth referred to as Kaneko).
As to claim 5, (Original) Lee and Jiang differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the outlet port is located on a first wall among walls forming the mixing space, the first inlet port, the second inlet port, and the intake port are located on a second wall among the walls forming the mixing space, the second wall is adjacent to the first wall, and the second wall is perpendicular to the first wall.
Kaneko teaches a similar substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [0099] liquid processing apparatus 10a). Kaneko teaches the outlet port is located on a first wall among walls forming the mixing space, the first inlet port, the second inlet port, and the intake port are located on a second wall among the walls forming the mixing space, the second wall is adjacent to the first wall, and the second wall is perpendicular to the first wall (FIG. 5 supply path 55, which connects to an outlet port on tank 60a, is on a wall adjacent and perpendicular to the wall where the inlet port and intake ports are connected.).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee and Jiang with a configuration of the ports as taught by Kaneko. Having inlet and outlet ports connected to a tank is known in the art and Kaneko teaches one configuration in how ports can be connected to a tank. It is known in the art to rearrange parts with no change in their respective functions (See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0392784 (henceforth referred to as Kim-784).
As to claim 6, (Original) Lee and Jiang differ from the instant claim in failing to teach
a first driver for moving the first valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the first inlet port,
wherein the supply of the first liquid is blocked when the first valve is in contact with the first inlet port, and the first liquid is supplied when the first valve is spaced away from the first inlet port,
the apparatus further comprises a second driver for moving the second valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the second inlet port,
wherein the supply of the second liquid is blocked when the second valve is in contact with the second inlet port, and the second liquid is supplied when the second valve is spaced away from the second inlet port,
the apparatus further comprises a third driver for moving the third valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the third inlet port,
wherein decompression of the mixing space is blocked when the third valve is in contact with the third inlet port, and the mixing space is decompressed when the third valve is spaced away from the third inlet port.
Kim-784 teaches a substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [0067] substrate treating system). Kim-784 teaches a driver for moving the first valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the inlet port (FIGS. 8-9 the combination of the air supplied to the valve 700 and the spring 730 allow for movement of the piston 720 toward and away from the port), wherein the supply of the liquid is blocked when the valve is in contact with the inlet port (FIG. 9 paragraph [0127] the piston member 720 moves downwardly (to be in contact) with the port to switch the flow path to a closed state.), and the liquid is supplied when the valve is spaced away from the inlet port (FIG. 8 paragraph [0126] the piston member 720 is moved upwardly (away) and a flow path becomes an open state).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee and Jiang with a valve as taught by Kim-784. Kim-784’s valve is known in the art and is a common embodiment of a valve.
Kim-784 does not teach a second driver or a third driver that moves the second and third valves, respectively. However, it would have been obvious to substitute any valve of Lee and Jiang with a valve taught by Kim-784 to achieve the expected result of a valve that can move towards and away from a port to allow for closing and opening of a flow path.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Iwata et al. U.S. Publication 2015/0114432 (henceforth referred to as Iwata) and Ha et al. U.S. Publication 2023/0207306 (henceforth referred to as Ha).
As to claim 7, (Original) Lee and Jiang further teach the mixing unit further includes a controller, and
the controller performs:
a mixed solution treatment operation of opening the first valve and the second valve to generate a mixed solution in which the first liquid and the second liquid are mixed in the mixing space, and supplying the mixed solution to the substrate to treat the substrate (Lee paragraph [0058] the liquid supply unit 400 can transfer the manufactured DSP mixture to the processing unit 380);
a decompression operation of, after the first liquid treatment operation, closing the first valve and the second valve and opening the third valve to decompress the mixing space (Jiang paragraph [n0046] intake control valve 53 can be opened or closed to reach the target pressure. Lee paragraph [0084] when processing liquid is not discharged to the substrate, the pump 462 can be operated in a standby state. It would have been obvious to decompress the mixing tank after the spraying is complete, as it is a known safety measure to release residual pressure).
Lee and Jiang differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a first liquid treatment operation of, after the mixed solution treatment operation, closing the second valve and supplying the first liquid to the substrate from the mixing space to treat the substrate; and opening the third valve to remove the liquid in the mixing space.
Iwata teaches a substrate processing apparatus (paragraph [0064] substrate processing apparatus 1). Iwata teaches a first liquid treatment operation of, after the mixed solution treatment operation, closing the second valve (paragraph [0153] When a predetermined SPM processing time elapses, the sulfuric acid valve 118 is closed) and supplying the first liquid to the substrate from the mixing space to treat the substrate (paragraph [0154] At step S26, a hydrogen peroxide solution (first liquid) is supplied after step S25, the SPM supply step (the mixed solution)).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee and Jiang with a first liquid supply step after the mixed solution supply step as taught by Iwata, as it can be used to further clean the substrate from impurities or rinse off residual mixed solution.
Ha teaches a substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [0048] substrate treating apparatus 1). Ha teaches opening the third valve to remove the liquid in the mixing space (paragraph [0088] a decompression member is provided in the first discharge line 402 to the drain the liquid in the storage space.).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee and Jiang with a decompression member that can drain the tank as taught by Ha. It is known in the art to drain a tank as a way to decompress the system. It would have been obvious to drain the system after the spraying is complete, as it is a known safety measure to relieve pressure that may have been released by the liquids within the tank.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Inada et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0277793 (henceforth referred to as Inada).
As to claim 8, (Original) Lee and Jiang differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the first liquid is a hydrogen peroxide solution (H2O2), and the second liquid is sulfuric acid (H2SO4).
Inada teaches a similar substrate treating apparatus (FIG. 2 paragraph [0056] substrate processing chamber 15). Inada teaches the first liquid is a hydrogen peroxide solution (H2O2), and the second liquid is sulfuric acid (H2SO4) (paragraph [0061] hydrogen peroxide supply source 61 and sulfuric acid supply source 56).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee and Jiang with sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide as taught by Inada. A mixture containing sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide is known in the art and is able to remove resist on the surface of the substrate (paragraph [0074]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) and Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kim et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0062242 (henceforth referred to as Kim-242).
As to claim 9, (Original) Lee and Jiang differ from the instant claim in failing to teach an inline-mixer installed on the treatment solution supply pipe.
Kim-242 teaches a substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [0024] semiconductor processing apparatus 1). Kim-242 teaches an inline-mixer installed on the treatment solution supply pipe (FIG. 1 paragraph [0040] in-line mixer 141).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee and Jiang with an in-line mixer as taught by Kim-242 as the in-line mixer is used to ensure that two or more liquids are evenly mixed (paragraph [0042]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee) in view of Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang) and Inada et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0277793 (henceforth referred to as Inada).
As to claim 16, (Original) Lee teaches an apparatus for treating a substrate, the apparatus comprising:
a process chamber for liquid-treating a substrate (paragraph [0045] a process chamber 260);
a treatment solution supply pipe for supplying a liquid used for the liquid treatment to the process chamber (FIGS. 3 and 10 paragraph [0054] and [0085] processing unit 380 supplies the processing liquid to the substrate W via transfer line 470);
a mixing unit connected to the treatment solution supply pipe and having a mixing space formed therein (paragraph [0059] tank 410 has an internal space 412, which would read on a mixing unit having a mixing space);
a solution supply pipe for supplying a solution to the mixing space (FIG. 10 paragraph [0061] first liquid supply line 420);
a supply pipe for supplying a supply to the mixing space (FIG. 10 paragraph [0066] a second liquid supply line 430);
an intake pipe for decompressing the mixing space (paragraph [0084] a circulation line 460 may be provided with a pump 462 that provides pressure reduction to the internal space);
a first valve for regulating the solution to the mixing space (paragraph [0061] first liquid valve 427);
a second valve for regulating the supply to the mixing space (paragraph [0066] second liquid valve 437); and
wherein the mixing unit includes a body including the mixing space, and a first inlet port (paragraph [0063] first liquid discharge port 424), a second inlet port (paragraph [0068] a second liquid discharge port 434), a third inlet port, and an outlet port connected with the mixing space (FIG. 10 circulation line 460 and transfer line 470 to connect with the mixing space, which means that there are ports on the tank 410),
the outlet port is connected with the liquid supply pipe (FIG. 10 paragraph [0085] transfer line 470 delivers the processing liquid to the processing unit 380. In order for the transfer line 470 to receive the liquid, there must be a port on tank 410),
the first inlet port is connected with the hydrogen peroxide solution supply pipe (FIG. 10 paragraph [0063] a first liquid discharge port 424 can supply the liquid flowing in the first liquid supply line 420 to the tank 410),
the second inlet port is connected with the sulfuric acid supply pipe (FIG. 10 paragraph [0068] a second liquid discharge port 434 can supply the liquid flowing the second liquid supply line 430 to the tank 410),
the third inlet port is connected with the intake pipe (FIG. 10 a port on the tank 410 is connected to the pipe 460).
Lee differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a hydrogen peroxide solution (H2O2) supply, a sulfuric acid (H2SO4) supply, an intake valve for regulating whether to decompress the mixing space, the first inlet port is disposed further from the outlet port than the second inlet port and the third inlet port, and a heater for heating the sulfuric acid is installed at the sulfuric acid supply pipe or a sulfuric acid supply source in which the sulfuric acid is stored.
Lee does not teach that the first inlet port is disposed further from the outlet port than the second inlet port and the third inlet port.
However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
Inada teaches a similar substrate treating apparatus (FIG. 2 paragraph [0056] substrate processing chamber 15). Inada teaches a hydrogen peroxide solution (H2O2) supply, and a sulfuric acid (H2SO4) supply (paragraph [0061] hydrogen peroxide supply source 61 and sulfuric acid supply source 56), and a heater for heating the sulfuric acid is installed at the sulfuric acid supply pipe or a sulfuric acid supply source in which the sulfuric acid is stored (FIG. 2 paragraph [0073] sulfuric acid is heated by heater 57).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, and a heater for sulfuric acid as taught by Inada. A mixture containing sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide is known in the art. Specifically, by heating sulfuric acid, the sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide mixture can reach a target temperature that can remove resist on the surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
Jiang teaches a substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [n0001] wafer chemical processing apparatus). Jiang teaches an intake valve for regulating whether to decompress the mixing space (paragraph [n0046] the opening of the intake control valve 53 can be increased or decreased in order to reach the target pressure).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee with an intake valve as taught by Jiang. It is known in the art to install a valve where a flow needs to be controlled. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to install a valve in order to control the pressure in the system.
As to claim 17, (Original) Lee, Inada, and Jiang do not teach the second inlet port is located between the first inlet port and the third inlet port.
However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed configuration is considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. It is old and well known to rearrange parts, with no change in their respective functions, due to size/space design criteria, the manufacturing expense thereof or purely for aesthetics. See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang), and Inada et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0277793 (henceforth referred to as Inada) as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Kaneko et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0125368 (henceforth referred to as Kaneko).
As to claim 18, (Original) Lee, Jiang, and Inada differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the outlet port is located on a first wall among walls forming the mixing space, the first inlet port, the second inlet port, and the intake port are located on a second wall among the walls forming the mixing space, the second wall is adjacent to the first wall, and the second wall is perpendicular to the first wall.
Kaneko teaches a similar substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [0099] liquid processing apparatus 10a). Kaneko teaches the outlet port is located on a first wall among walls forming the mixing space, the first inlet port, the second inlet port, and the intake port are located on a second wall among the walls forming the mixing space, the second wall is adjacent to the first wall, and the second wall is perpendicular to the first wall (FIG. 5 supply path 55, which connects to an outlet port on tank 60a, is on a wall adjacent and perpendicular to the wall where the inlet port and intake ports are connected.).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught by Lee, Jiang, and Inada with a configuration of the ports as taught by Kaneko. Having inlet and outlet ports connected to a tank is known in the art and Kaneko teaches one configuration in how ports can be connected to a tank. It is known in the art to rearrange parts with no change in their respective functions (See MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C. Rearrangement of Parts).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang), Inada et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0277793 (henceforth referred to as Inada), and Kaneko et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0125368 (henceforth referred to as Kaneko) as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Kim et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0062242 (henceforth referred to as Kim-242).
As to claim 19, (Original) Lee, Jiang, Inada, and Kaneko differ from the instant claim in failing to teach an inline-mixer installed on the treatment solution supply pipe.
Kim-242 teaches a substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [0024] semiconductor processing apparatus 1). Kim-242 teaches an inline-mixer installed on the treatment solution supply pipe (FIG. 1 paragraph [0040] in-line mixer 141).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught Lee, Jiang, Inada, and Kaneko with an in-line mixer as taught by Kim-242 as the in-line mixer is used to ensure that two or more liquids are evenly mixed (paragraph [0042]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR20200064270 (henceforth referred to as Lee), Jiang et al. CN 114678290 (henceforth referred to as Jiang), Inada et al. U.S. Publication 2011/0277793 (henceforth referred to as Inada), Kaneko et al. U.S. Publication 2012/0125368 (henceforth referred to as Kaneko), and Kim et al. U.S. Publication 2017/0062242 (henceforth referred to as Kim-242) as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Kim et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0392784 (henceforth referred to as Kim-784).
As to claim 20, (Original) Lee, Jiang, Inada, Kaneko, and Kim-242 differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a first driver for moving the first valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the first inlet port,
wherein the supply of the hydrogen peroxide solution is blocked when the first valve is in contact with the first inlet port, and the hydrogen peroxide solution is supplied when the first valve is spaced away from the first inlet port,
the apparatus further comprises a second driver for moving the second valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the second inlet port,
wherein the supply of the sulfuric acid is blocked when the second valve is in contact with the second inlet port, and the sulfuric acid is supplied when the second valve is spaced away from the second inlet port,
the apparatus further comprises a third driver for moving the third valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the third inlet port,
wherein decompression of the mixing space is blocked when the third valve contacts the third inlet port, and the mixing space is decompressed when the third valve is spaced away from the third inlet port.
Kim-784 teaches a substrate treating apparatus (paragraph [0067] substrate treating system). Kim-784 teaches a driver for moving the first valve in a direction toward or away from an end portion of the inlet port (FIGS. 8-9 the combination of the air supplied to the valve 700 and the spring 730 allow for movement of the piston 720 toward and away from the port), wherein the supply of the liquid is blocked when the valve is in contact with the inlet port (FIG. 9 paragraph [0127] the piston member 720 moves downwardly (to be in contact) with the port to switch the flow path to a closed state.), and the liquid is supplied when the valve is spaced away from the inlet port (FIG. 8 paragraph [0126] the piston member 720 is moved upwardly (away) and a flow path becomes an open state).
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 substrate treating apparatus as taught Lee, Jiang, Inada, Kaneko, and Kim-242 with a valve as taught by Kim-784. Kim-784’s valve is known in the art and is a common embodiment of a valve.
Kim-784 does not teach a second driver or a third driver that moves the second and third valves, respectively. However, it would have been obvious to substitute any valve of Lee and Jiang with a valve taught by Kim-784 to achieve the expected result of a valve that can move towards and away from a port to allow for closing and opening of a flow path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights