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 1-10 and 17-20 are pending. Claims 11-16 are 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 7 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the washing recipe” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because multiple washing recipes are taught (line 2), so it is not clear what recipe(s) this refers to.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20180122517 to Semes Co. Ltd. (“Semes”, and note the attached translation) in view of US 2008/0216746 to Fujita et al. (“Fujita”).
Regarding claim 1, Semes teaches a substrate treatment method comprising washing a drying chamber (translation, abstract, page 4, first para, para bridging pages 6-7) comprising: wetting a dummy substrate with a chemical in a liquid treatment chamber (translation, page 4, first para); and washing a treatment space of the drying chamber by loading the dummy substrate wet with the chemical into the drying chamber and then supplying supercritical fluid to the drying chamber (translation, page 1, last full para, page 2, para beginning “The organic solvent is supplied”).
Semes does not explicitly teach performing bake treatment to reuse the dummy substrate used to wash the drying chamber. However, it was known that baking can remove substances on dummy wafers (see, e.g., Fujita at, inter alia, para [0038]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Semes method as was known wherein it includes performing bake treatment on the dummy substrate used to wash the drying chamber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prepare the substrate for future use, thereby inhibiting the expense of additional dummy wafers for repeated operations.
Regarding claim 2, Semes as modified discloses unloading the dummy substrate from a dummy FOUP and loading the dummy substrate into the liquid treatment chamber; and returning the baked dummy substrate to the dummy FOUP (translation, page 5, para beginning “In the load port”, page 6, para beginning “The transfer frame”).
Regarding claim 3, Semes as discloses a method wherein the chemical wetting the dummy substrate comprises an organic solvent (translation, page 1, last full para, page 2, para beginning “The organic solvent is supplied”).
Regarding claim 4, Semes as discloses a method wherein the supercritical fluid comprises carbon dioxide (translation, page 3, first full para).
Regarding claim 5, Semes/Fujita discloses a method wherein heat treatment is performed on the dummy substrate at 110℃ or higher in the bake treatment (Fujita, para [0037]).
Regarding claim 17, Semes teaches a substrate treatment method (translation, abstract, page 4, first para, para bridging pages 6-7) comprising: performing developing treatment by applying a developer to the substrate in a liquid treatment chamber (translation, page 1, last two full paras, page 4, first para); performing drying treatment on the developed substrate using supercritical fluid in a drying chamber (translation, page 1, last two full paras, page 4, first para); and washing the drying chamber, wherein the washing of the drying chamber comprises: unloading a dummy substrate from a dummy FOUP and loading the dummy substrate into the liquid treatment chamber (translation, page 5, para beginning “In the load port”, page 6, para beginning “The transfer frame”); wetting the dummy substrate with a chemical in the liquid treatment chamber (translation, page 4, first para); washing a treatment space of the drying chamber by loading the dummy substrate wet with the chemical into the drying chamber and then supplying supercritical fluid to the drying chamber (translation, page 1, last full para, page 2, para beginning “The organic solvent is supplied”); and returning the dummy substrate to the dummy FOUP (translation, page 5, para beginning “In the load port”, page 6, para beginning “The transfer frame”).
Semes does not explicitly teach performing bake treatment to reuse the dummy substrate used to wash the drying chamber. However, it was known that baking can remove substances on dummy wafers (see, e.g., Fujita at, inter alia, para [0038]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Semes method as was known wherein it includes performing bake treatment on the dummy substrate used to wash the drying chamber, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prepare the substrate for future use, thereby inhibiting the expense of additional dummy wafers for repeated operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (and claims 7 and 9 are rejected as indefinite), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and claim 7 and 9 cured of the indefiniteness).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is Semes. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the washing of the drying chamber comprises a pre-mode that is performed before a preset developing process job of substrates is started, a middle mode that is performed during the developing process job of substrates, and a post-mode that is performed after the developing process job of substrates is finished, in combination with the other method steps as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0158699 to Kitayama et al. teaches a method for cleaning a substrate processing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights