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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains typographical errors. The word “chemicalstored” should read “chemical stored”. The word “chemicalexchange” should read “chemical exchange”. The word “chemicalused” should read “chemical used”.
Appropriate correction is required
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki et al. (US 2015/0273538), and further in view of Ryu et al. (KR 20110136677, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 10: Saiki teaches a chemical supply method that supplies a chemical to a substrate processing apparatus from a chemical processing apparatus having a first tank and a second tank (Fig. 2, elements 15 and 16), the chemical supply method comprising:
supplying a chemical stored in the first tank to the substrate processing apparatus and recovering a chemical used in the substrate processing apparatus to the first tank [0051];
a chemical exchange step of supplying a new chemical to the first tank [0060], wherein the chemical in the second tank is supplied to the substrate processing apparatus in the chemical exchange step [0058].
Saiki does not expressly disclose supplementing the first tank with a chemical in the second tank, as needed. However, Ryu teaches a chemical supply method for a substrate processing wherein a first tank is supplemented with a chemical from a second tank when the chemical in the first tank is found to reach a predetermined level (pg. 7, final paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Saiki by supplementing the first tank with a chemical in the second tank as needed in order to maintain a desired amount of chemical for substrate processing, as suggested by Ryu.
Saiki does not expressly disclose performing the chemical exchange when the chemical stored in the first tank reaches its lifetime. However, Saiki teaches that the processing capability of the liquid is reduced as it is used over time and that the exchange is initiated accordingly [0052, 0063]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Saiki such that the exchange is performed when the chemical stored in the first tank reaches its lifetime in order to maintain the integrity of the processing liquid, as suggested by Saiki.
Regarding Claim 11: Saiki further teaches that the chemical used in the substrate processing apparatus is not recovered but is drained in the chemical exchange step [0053].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki et al. (US 2015/0273538) and Ryu et al. (KR 20110136677, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 10 and further in view of Kougaki et al. (JP 200624793, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 12: Saiki and Ryu teach the elements of Claim 10 as discussed above, but do not expressly disclose wherein a chemical used in an early stage of processing one sheet of substrate is discarded and only the chemical used thereafter is recovered to the first tank. However, Kougaki teaches a chemical supply method wherein a chemical used in an early stage of processing is discarded and only the chemical used thereafter is recovered for reuse (see abstract). 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 method of Saiki and Ryu such that an initial processing liquid is discarded in order to avoid heavily contaminated fluid from being circulated as taught by Kougaki.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14: The prior art teach the elements of Claim 12 as discussed above. Ryu is cited for teaching supplementing the first tank. Ryu further teaches that supplementing the tank is performed when a concentration does not meet a certain criteria (pg. 7, final paragraph) and that supplementation corresponds to a difference between a supply amount and a recovery amount recovered to the first tank (pg. 8, first full paragraph).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki et al. (US 2015/0273538) and Ryu et al. (KR 20110136677, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Kasahara et al. (US 2013/0220478).
Regarding Claims 15-17: Saiki teaches that the chemical exchange step drains the chemical accommodated in the first tank and supplies new chemical to the first tank [0057]. Saiki does not expressly disclose circulating a flushing liquid in the first tank before the chemical exchange. However, Kasahara teaches that it is known to flush liquid-contacting surfaces of a substrate processing system before a chemical liquid exchange step using the new chemical to be used in the next processing step, wherein the flush is performed at least twice [0024, 0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by flushing the first tank as claimed in order to remove deteriorated process liquid and prepare the system for subsequent processing, as suggested by Kasahara.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki et al. (US 2015/0273538) and further in view of Ryu et al. (KR 20110136677, machine translation referenced herein) and Kougaki et al. (JP 200624793. Machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 18: Saiki teaches a chemical supply method that supplies a chemical to a substrate processing apparatus from a chemical processing apparatus having a first tank and a second tank (elements 15 and 16), the chemical supply method comprising:
supplying a chemical stored in the first tank to the substrate processing apparatus [0051]; and
a chemical exchange step of supplying a new chemical to the first tank [0060],
wherein, in the chemical exchange step, the chemical in the second tank is supplied to the substrate processing apparatus and the chemical used in the substrate processing apparatus is not recovered but is drained [0053].
Saiki does not expressly disclose supplementing the first tank with a chemical in the second tank, as needed such that a specific component of the chemical stored in the first tank is maintained below a predetermined concentration. However, Ryu teaches a chemical supply method for a substrate processing wherein a first tank is supplemented with a chemical from a second tank when the chemical in the first tank is found to reach a predetermined level (pg. 7, final paragraph). Ryu further teaches that supplementing the tank is performed when a concentration does not meet a certain criteria (pg. 7, final paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Saiki by supplementing the first tank with a chemical in the second tank as needed in order to maintain a desired amount of chemical for substrate processing, as suggested by Ryu.
Saiki does not expressly disclose wherein a chemical used in an early stage of processing one sheet of substrate is discarded and only the chemical used thereafter is recovered to the first tank. However, Kougaki teaches a chemical supply method wherein a chemical used in an early stage of processing is discarded and only the chemical used thereafter is recovered for reuse (see abstract). 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 method of Saiki and Ryu such that an initial processing liquid is discarded in order to avoid heavily contaminated fluid from being circulated as taught by Kougaki.
Saiki does not expressly disclose performing the chemical exchange when the chemical stored in the first tank reaches its lifetime. However, Saiki teaches that the processing capability of the liquid is reduced as it is used over time and that the exchange is initiated accordingly [0052, 0063]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Saiki such that the exchange is performed when the chemical stored in the first tank reaches its lifetime in order to maintain the integrity of the processing liquid, as suggested by Saiki.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki et al. (US 2015/0273538), Ryu et al. (KR 20110136677, machine translation referenced herein) and Kougaki et al. (JP 200624793, machine translation referenced herein) as applied to Claim 19, and further in view of Kasahara et al. (US 2013/0220478)
Regarding Claims 19 and 20: The prior art teach the elements of Claim 18 as discussed above. Ryu further teaches that the supplementation amount corresponds to a difference between a supply amount and a recovery amount recovered to the first tank (pg. 8, first full paragraph).
Saiki teaches that the chemical exchange step drains the chemical accommodated in the first tank and supplies new chemical to the first tank [0057]. Saiki does not expressly disclose circulating a flushing liquid in the first tank before the chemical exchange. However, Kasahara teaches that it is known to flush liquid-contacting surfaces of a substrate processing system before a chemical liquid exchange step using the new chemical to be used in the next processing step, wherein the flush is performed at least twice [0024, 0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by flushing the first tank as claimed in order to remove deteriorated process liquid and prepare the system for subsequent processing, as suggested by Kasahara.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights