CTNF 18/958,534 CTNF 77093 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Loading/unloading part as recited in claims 1-20 Batch-type processing part as recited in claims 1-3, 11, and 17-20 Single-substrate-type processing part as recited in claims 1-16 and 20 Interface part as recited in claims 1-20 Lot formation part as recited in claims 1-20 Transfer part as recited in claims 1 and 12-20 Transfer device as recited in claims 5-9 Drying apparatus as recited in claims 18 and 19 Solution processing apparatus as recited in clam 19 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Loading/unloading part is interpreted as element 2 and has a stage 21 as recited in [0021] of the original specification Batch-type processing part is interpreted as element 6 and processes a plurality of wafers which includes first chemical solution bath 63, a first rinse solution 64, a second chemical solution bath 65, a second rinse solution bath 66, a third chemical solution bath 67, and a third chemical solution 68 according to [0035] of the original specification Single-substrate-type processing part is interpreted as element 3 and processes a single-substrate W and has a second transfer region 31 see [0026]. Interface part is interpreted as element 5 and has a lot formation part 51 and a transfer part 52 as recited in [0029] Lot formation part is interpreted as element 51 as recited in [0029] and holds the plurality of substrates W at the first pitch P1 and forms a lot L Transfer part is interpreted as element 52 as recited in [0030] and includes a first transfer robot 52 and a second transfer robot 54 Transfer device is interpreted as element 24 as recited in [0024] and has a first transfer arm Drying apparatus is interpreted as element 35 as recited in [0027] and dries the substrates W one by one with a supercritical fluid Solution processing apparatus is interpreted as element 34 as recited in [0027] is of a single substrate type or batch type see Fig. 1 If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,613 henceforth referred to as the patent . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claimed invention is fully encompassed by the claims of the patent Regarding claim 1: The patent claims in claim 1 a substrate processing system comprising a loading/unloading part, batch -type processing part, a single-substrate-type processing part, and an interface part where the loading/unloading part, the single substrate-type processing part, and an interface part, and the batch -type processing part are arranged in this order. See claim 1 of the patent where it also claims a lot formation part and a transfer part. Regarding claim 2: See claim 2 of the patent. Regarding claim 3: See claim 3 of the patent. Regarding claim 4: See claim 4 of the patent. Regarding claim 5: See claim 5 of the patent. Regarding claim 6: See claim 6 of the patent. Regarding claim 7: See claim 7 of the patent. Regarding claim 8 See claim 8 of the patent. Regarding claims 9 and 15: See claim 9 of the patent. Regarding claim 10: See claim 10 of the patent. Regarding claim 11: See claim 11 of the patent. Regarding claim 12: See claim 12 of the patent. Regarding claim 13 See claim 13 of the patent. Regarding claim 14: See claim 14 of the patent. Regarding claim 16: See claim 15 of the patent. Regarding claims 17 : See claim 16 of the patent. Regarding claim 18: See claim 17 of the patent. Regarding claim 19: See claim 18 of the patent. Regarding claim 20: See claim 19 of the patent . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,469,114 henceforth referred to as the patent . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claimed invention is fully encompassed by the claims of the patent . Regarding claim 1: The patent claims in claim 1 a substrate processing system comprising a loading/unloading part, batch -type processing part, a single-substrate-type processing part, and an interface part where the loading/unloading part, the single substrate-type processing part, and an interface part, and the batch -type processing part are arranged in this order. See claim 1 of the patent where it also claims a lot formation part and a transfer part. Regarding claim 12: See claim 1 of the patent where the batch-type processing part comprises a processing bath, a first holder holding a plurality of substrates at a first pitch and a second holder holding a plurality of substrates at a second pitch. Claim 1 of the patent also claims that the transfer part transfers a plurality of substrates which are held separately by the first holder and the second in the processing solution from the batch -type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. Regarding claim 13: See claim 4 of the patent. Regarding claim 14 See claim 4 of the patent. Regarding claim 15: See claim 6 of the patent. Regarding claim 16: See claim 7 of the patent. Regarding claims 17 : See claim 8 of the patent. Regarding claim 18: See claim 9 of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim s 2-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,469,114 in view of Onzuka et al (US 2018/0166310) . The claims of the patent were recited above. Regarding claim 2: The patent fails to claim that the transfer part specifically comprises a first and second robot. The prior art of Onzuka et al teaches a substrate processing system with a transfer part (wafer handling section 3) that comprises a first transfer robot (FOUP transport 12) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the single-substrate-type processing part (60) to the lot formation part, and a second transfer robot (19) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. See [0022], [0031] of Onzuka et al. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the transfer part of Onzuka et al is that the transfer provides a first transfer robot and a second transfer robot to transport a single wafer to the single-substrate type processing part and the batch-type processing part separately and independently. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the first and second transfer robots of Onzuka et al in order to transport a single wafer to the single-substrate type processing part and the batch-type processing part separately and independently. Regarding claims 3 and 11: The patent fails to claim that the first transfer robot is suspended on a ceiling of the interface part, and the second transfer robot is installed on a floor of the interface part. See Fig. 2 (provided below) of Onzuka et al where the first and second transfer robots are located as claimed that the transporting of the substrate(s) to their respective processing parts can be performed without interference or delay while other substrate(s) are transported. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent to locate the first and second transfer robots as suggested by Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 4: See claim 1 of the patent where the batch-type processing part comprises a processing bath, a first holder holding a plurality of substrates at a first pitch and a second holder holding a plurality of substrates at a second pitch. Claim 1 of the patent also claims that the transfer part transfers a plurality of substrates which are held separately by the first holder and the second in the processing solution from the batch -type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. Regarding claim 5: See claim 2of the patent. Regarding claims 6 and 10: See claim 3 of the patent. Regarding claim 7: See claim 4 of the patent. Regarding claim 8: : See claim 5 of the patent. Regarding claim 9 : See claim 6 of the patent . 08-36 AIA Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,469,114 in view of Cho et al (US 2008/0063493) . Recall in claim 9 of the patent a drying apparatus is recited where the plurality of substrates are dried one by one with a supercritical fluid. The patent fails to claim that the plurality of substates are dried collectively. The prior art of Cho et al teaches a substrate dryer includes a chamber 102 (substrate dryer 100) with a supercritical fluid used to dry a plurality of substrates see abstract and [0014]. See [0020] – [0029] where a batch of substrates are processed at a supercritical state. The prior art of Cho et al shows that it is known to use a supercritical fluid to increase the efficacy of the drying process of the apparatus of Onzuka et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent to dry the substrates collectively rather than one by one as the prior art of Cho et al suggests that drying them collectively/simultaneously improves efficiency and throughput of the apparatus. Regarding the limitation reciting the convex-concave pattern formed on the substrate. Note that this limitation is interpreted as a matter of an intended use as the type of substrate and the pattern formed thereupon are not structurally part of the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent et al alone or in combination with the prior art of Cho et al could process a wafer with this claimed pattern . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Onzuka et al (US 2018/0166310) . Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Onzuka et al teaches a substrate processing system comprising: a loading/unloading part 5 into and from which a cassette (FOUP F)that accommodates a plurality of substrates is loaded and unloaded respectively; a batch-type processing part 4 configured to collectively process a lot including the plurality of substrates([0022]) ; a single-substrate-type processing part (see claim 1) [0031] configured to process the plurality of substrates of the lot one by one; and an interface part configured to deliver the plurality of substrates between the batch-type processing part and the single-substrate-type processing part, wherein the loading/unloading part, the single-substrate-type processing part, the interface part (see location of FOUP and the robots 12, 19, 21) and the batch-type processing part are arranged in this order See Fig. 2, and wherein the interface part comprises a lot formation part configured to form the lot (cassettes/FOUP)-, and a transfer part configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the single-substrate-type processing part to the lot formation part, and configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. See [0033] of Onzuka et al. PNG media_image1.png 708 774 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2: The substrate processing system of Claim 1, wherein the transfer part (wafer handling section 3) comprises a first transfer robot (FOUP transport 12) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the single-substrate-type processing part (60) to the lot formation part, and a second transfer robot (19/22) configured to transfer the plurality of substrates from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. [0022], [0031] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 3: The substrate processing system of Claim 2, wherein the first transfer robot is suspended on a ceiling of the interface part, and the second transfer robot is installed on a floor of the interface part. See Fig. 2 of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 4: The substrate processing system of Claim 3, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a processing bath (tanks 31-33) that stores a processing solution having a lump shape or a mist shape, a first holder configured to hold the plurality of substrates at a first pitch, and a second holder configured to receive the plurality of substrates arranged at a second pitch, which is N times of the first pitch (N is a natural number of 2 or more), from the first holder in the processing solution, and wherein the transfer part transfers the plurality of substrates, which are held separately by the first holder and the second holder in the processing solution, from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. See Figs. 3, 7, and 8 see [0044] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 5: The substrate processing system of Claim 4, wherein the batch-type processing part 4further comprises a transfer region having a rectangular shape in a plan view, and a transfer device configured to move and rotate (see [0007]) while holding the lot in the transfer region, and wherein the lot formation part is arranged near a short side of the transfer region, the processing bath is arranged near a long side of the transfer region, and the transfer part is arranged near both the lot formation part [0038]and the processing bath. See [0022] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 6: The substrate processing system of Claim 5, wherein the processing bath stores pure water in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 7: The substrate processing system of Claim 6, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a dilute hydrofluoric acid in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 8: The substrate processing system of Claim 7, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a phosphoric acid aqueous solution in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claims 9 and 15. The substrate processing system of Claim 8, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a mixed solution of ammonia, hydrogen peroxide, and water in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al, see recitation of SC-1 which is the claimed mixed solution. Regarding claim 10: The substrate processing system of Claim 4, wherein the processing bath stores pure water in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 11: The substrate processing system of Claim 2, wherein the first transfer robot is installed on a floor of the interface part, and the second transfer robot is suspended on a ceiling of the interface part. See Fig. 2 of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 12: The substrate processing system of Claim 1, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a processing bath that stores a processing solution having a lump shape or a mist shape, a first holder configured to hold the plurality of substrates at a first pitch, and a second holder configured to receive the plurality of substrates arranged at a second pitch, which is N times of the first pitch (N is a natural number of 2 or more), from the first holder in the processing solution, and wherein the transfer part transfers the plurality of substrates, which are held separately by the first holder and the second holder in the processing solution, from the batch-type processing part to the single-substrate-type processing part. See Figs. 3, 7, and 8 see [0044] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 13: The substrate processing system of Claim 1, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a dilute hydrofluoric acid in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 14: The substrate processing system of Claim 1, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a phosphoric acid aqueous solution in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 16: The substrate processing system of Claim 1, wherein the batch-type processing part comprises a chemical solution bath that stores a mixed solution of sulfuric acid, hydrogen peroxide, and water in which the lot is immersed. See [0045] and the discussion of SPM of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 17: The substrate processing system of Claim 1, wherein the single-substrate-type processing part comprises a solution processing apparatus configured to process the plurality of substrates one by one with a solution. See [0033] – [0035] and [0042] – [0050] of Onzuka et al. Regarding claim 20: A substrate processing method of processing a plurality of substrates using the substrate processing system of Claim 1. See [0022], [0024] – [0030], [0036]- [0041] of Onzuka et al . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onzuka et al (US 2018/0166310) in view of Cho et al (US 2008/0063493) . The teachings of Onzuka et al were discussed above. See Onzuka et al teaches drying unit 8 in [0048] and [0064] of Onzuka teaches that IPA (the suggested supercritical fluid according to the original specification [0063] of the present invention) is used to dry the wafers but fails to specify whether wafers are dried one by one or collectively. The prior art of Cho et al teaches a substrate dryer includes a chamber 102 (substrate dryer 100) with a supercritical fluid used to dry a plurality of substrates see abstract and [0014]. See [0020] – [0029] where a batch of substrates are processed collectively at a supercritical state. The prior art of Cho et al shows that it is known to use a supercritical fluid to increase the efficacy of the drying process of the apparatus of Onzuka et al. See also [0027] of Cho et al where it is suggested to process a single wafer. Regarding the limitation recited in claim 19 reciting the convex-concave pattern formed on the substrate. Note that this limitation is interpreted as a matter of an intended use as the type of substrate and the pattern formed thereupon are not structurally part of the apparatus and the prior art of Onzuka et al alone or in combination with the prior art of Cho et al could process a wafer with this pattern . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2006-147693 teaches a substrate processing system with batch type processing of wafers. Various processing fluids are taught including HF, SC1 (ammonia mixed with hydrogen peroxide and water) and IPA (supercritical) WO 2012-133583 teaches drying wafers with a supercritical fluid. KR 20060073468 teaches it is known to process wafers collectively and one by one using various transport robots. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm. 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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. /SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/958,534 Page 2 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/958,534 Page 3 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 18/958,534 Page 4 Art Unit: 1716
Prosecution Insights