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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15, 21-25) in the reply filed on 4/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/6/26. Claims 16-20 have been cancelled.
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 5-7, 9, 10, 13, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about 1 cm to about 100 cm” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 1 cm to about 100 cm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of distances is being claimed.
The term “about 300 nm to about 3,000 nm” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 300 nm to about 3,000 nm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of wavelengths is being claimed.
The term “about 0.1 W to 2,000W” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 0.1 W to 2,000W” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of power is being claimed.
The term “about 1 rpm to about 1,000 rpm” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 1 rpm to about 1,000 rpm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of rotational speeds is being claimed.
The term “substantially identical” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of variation is being claimed.
The term “about 15o to about 175o” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 15o to about 175o” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of angles is being claimed.
The term “substantially identical” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of variation is being claimed.
The term “about 0.01 m to about 3 mm” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 0.01 m to about 3 mm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range of thicknesses is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13, 21, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sotoaka et al. (US20090114619).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8 and 21, Sotoaka et al. teaches a wet process system (see abstract), comprising: a wafer holder 62/14 capable of holding a wafer 63/11 including a treating area (see area of wafer that receives radiation, as shown by arrows in figures 7c and 10) and a protecting area (see area of wafer that do not receive radiation and correspond to the blocking patterns 71/19, as shown in figures 7c and 10), the wafer holder 62/14 comprising a spin base (see paragraphs [0002], [0190], [0191], [0206], [0217], figures 7c, 10); a thermal-emitting apparatus 68,73,70/21,20 located above the wafer holder 62/14 along a Y axis and configured to emit thermal radiation (see ultraviolet radiation) to the wafer 63/11, the thermal-emitting apparatus 68,73,70/21,20 capable of emitting the thermal radiation with a pattern, so that the treating liquid on the wafer 63/11 is partially (see area of wafer that receives radiation, as shown by arrows in figures 7c and 10) heated by the thermal radiation (see abstract, paragraphs [0191], [0217], figures 7c, 10) (reads on claim 2); the thermal emitting apparatus 68,73,70/21,20 comprising: an emitter 68, 70 configured to emit thermal radiation to the wafer 63/11, and a rotational chuck 72 attached to the emitter 68, 70 (see abstract, paragraphs [0191], [0217], figures 7c, 10, hence the emitter 68, 70 driven by the rotational chuck 72 is capable of spinning along with spinning of the wafer holder 62/14 driven by the spin base); and a liquid provider 66/17 configured to provide a treating liquid onto the wafer 63/11, wherein the treating liquid provided on the wafer 63/11 is capable of being heated by the thermal radiation emitted from the emitter 68, 70/21, 20 of the thermal-emitting apparatus 68,73,70/21,20 68/21 such that a temperature of the treating liquid provided on the treating area of the wafer 63/11 receiving the thermal radiation is higher than a temperature of the treating liquid provided on the protecting area of the wafer 63/11 (see abstract, paragraphs [0191], [0206], [0217], figures 7c, 10). While Sotoaka et al. does not explicitly teach that the emitter driven by the rotational chuck spins along with spinning of the wafer holder driven by the spin base, since both the rotational chuck 72 and the wafer holder 62/14 are capable of being rotated, all of the structural requirements of the claim are met and the choice of simultaneous rotation of the wafer holder and the emitter that is driven by the rotational chuck is a matter of intended use; and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 22, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 21. Sotoaka et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0190]-[0193], [0206], [0217] and figures 7c and 10 that the emitter 68, 70/21, 20 has a patterned screen 70/20 comprising: an emitting portion (see portions of 70 and 20 corresponding to the arrows showing passage of radiation as shown in figures 7c and 10) corresponding to the treating area and allowing the thermal radiation to pass toward the treating area; and a blocking portion 71/19 corresponding to the protecting area and blocking the thermal radiation from being transmitted toward the wafer 63/11.
Regarding claim 6, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sotoaka et al. also teaches in figures 14, 16, 17 and paragraphs [0227]-[0228] that the thermal radiation may be generated by a light emitted from the thermal-emitting apparatus 68,73,70/21,20 68/21, and wavelength of the light may range from about 300 nm to about 3,000 nm.
Regarding claims 9-10, 24, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claims 8 and 21. Sotoaka et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0002], [0190]-[0192], [0206], [0217], figures 7c, 10, that the wafer holder 62/14 comprises a spin base; and the thermal-emitting apparatus 68,73,70/21,20 68/21 further comprises a rotational chuck 72 attached to the emitter 68, 70 and that the wafer holder 62/14 and the rotational chuck 72 are capable of rotating the wafer 63/11 and the emitter 68, 70/21, 20, respectively, allowing for dispersion of fluids on the wafer and positioning of the emitter. Sotoaka et al. does not explicitly teach the particular speeds at which the wafer and emitter are rotated. However, since both the rotational chuck 72 and the wafer holder 62/14 are capable of being rotated, all of the structural requirements of the claim are met and the choice of the particular speeds of rotation of the wafer holder and the rotational chuck is a matter of intended use; and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 13, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claim 8. Sotoaka et al. does not explicitly teach that a field of view from a center of the emitter to an edge of the wafer ranges from about 15o to about 175o. However, the field of view from a center of the emitter to an edge of the wafer depends on the size and shape of the wafer and it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 25, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claim 21. Sotoaka et al. teaches in see abstract, paragraphs [0191], [0206], [0217], figures 7c, 10, that a liquid provider 66/17 may supply a desired amount of liquid to the surface of the wafer 63/11. Sotoaka et al. does not explicitly teach that the treating liquid provided on the wafer has a thickness ranging from about 0.01 m to about 3 mm. However, since the apparatus by Sotoaka et al. is capable of providing a desired amount of liquid on the wafer, all of the structural requirements of the claim are met and the choice of the particular thickness of treating liquid on the wafer is a matter of intended use; and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoaka et al. (US20090114619).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 23, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 21. Sotoaka et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0190]-[0193], [0206], [0217] and figures 7c and 10 that the emitter 68, 70/21, 20 has a patterned screen 70/20 comprising: an emitting portion (see portions of 70 and 20 corresponding to the arrows showing passage of radiation as shown in figures 7c and 10) corresponding to the treating area and allowing the thermal radiation to pass toward the treating area; and a blocking portion 71/19 corresponding to the protecting area and blocking the thermal radiation from being transmitted toward the wafer 63/11. Sotoaka et al. does not explicitly teach that the patterned screen is detachable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the patterned screen may be detachable so as to allow for exchange of patterns as well as for regular maintenance purposes. Furthermore, it has been determined that making separable constitutes an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 5, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sotoaka teaches in paragraphs [0151], [0178], [0200], [0257], [0259], [0260] and figures 7c, 8 and 10 that the radiation from the emitter 68, 70/21, 20 travels a distance that, along with the type of fluid on the wafer, the type of intervening gas, and the type of radiation, determines the amount of energy absorbed by the solution on the wafer 63/11 and the particular shape of the pattern formation. Sotoaka et al. does not explicitly teach that a distance between the thermal-emitting apparatus and the wafer holder ranges from about 1 cm to about 100 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the particular distance between the thermal emitting apparatus and the wafer holder may be chosen so as to optimize the energy absorption of the wafer and solution for the desired pattern formation and application. Furthermore, it has been determined that the rearrangement of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Moreover, it has been determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sotoaka et al. teaches in paragraphs [0151], [0178], [0200], [0257], [0259], [0260] and figures 7c, 8 and 10 that thermal radiation is capable of being generated by a light emitted from the thermal-emitting apparatus 68,73,70/21,20 68/21 and that the radiation from the emitter 68, 70/21, 20 travels a distance that, along with the type of fluid on the wafer, the type of intervening gas, and the type and wavelength of radiation (reads on power of the light), determines the amount of energy absorbed by the solution on the wafer 63/11 and the particular shape of the pattern formation. Sotoaka et al. does not explicitly teach that the power of the light ranges from about 0.1 W to 2,000W. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the particular level of power emitted by the thermal emitting apparatus may be chosen so as to optimize the energy absorption of the wafer and solution for the desired pattern formation and application. Furthermore, it has been determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoaka et al. (US20090114619) as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Devilliers et al. (US20150147827).
Regarding claim 14, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claim 8. Sotoaka et al. does not teach a real-time temperature sensor configured to monitor a temperature of the treating liquid on the wafer and to transmit collected temperature data to the thermal-emitting apparatus. Devilliers et al. teaches a substrate treatment system (see abstract) and that a real-time temperature sensor 143 configured to monitor a temperature of treating liquid on the wafer and to transmit collected temperature data to the thermal-emitting apparatus 103 (including accompanying controller), allowing for improved process uniformity and reduced defects (see abstract, paragraphs [0007], [0026], [0035], [0039], [0044], [0047], [0052], figure 2). Since both Sotoaka et al. and Devilliers et al. teach substrate processing systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a temperature sensor may be included in the system by Sotoaka et al. capable of monitoring the temperature of the treating liquid on the wafer and transmitting collected data to the thermal emitting apparatus so as to allow for improved process uniformity and reduced defects, as shown to be known and conventional by Devilliers et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotoaka et al. (US20090114619) as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Chen et al. (CN117316833A).
Regarding claim 15, Sotoaka et al. teaches the limitations of claim 8. Sotoaka et al. teaches in paragraphs [0205] and [0218] that the entire process may be automatically controlled. Sotoaka et al. does not teach a speed sensor, which monitors a spin speed of the wafer. Chen et al. teaches a substrate treating apparatus (see abstract) and a speed sensor 17, which monitors a spin speed of the wafer and transmits collected speed data so that the spinning of the wafer holder 11 is capable of being real-time controlled, so as to ensure that the speed of rotation of the wafer is maintained at the desired level (see abstract, page 5 of the translation). Since both Sotoaka et al. and Chen et al. teach substrate treating systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a speed sensor may be included in the system by Sotoaka et al. that transmits collected speed date to the wafer holder so as to allow for maintenance of the wafer rotation speed at the desired level during operation, as shown to be known and conventional by Chen et al. Since Sotoaka et al. teaches that the system may be entirely automated, it is readily apparent that the collected speed data may be sent to the wafer holder in order to adjust the rotational speed of the wafer holder as necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights