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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claim 8 is withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comments
Claims 1-7 may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA et al. (US PGPUB 20190172733), in view of OKUTANI et al. (US PGPUB 20170282210).
As an example, for Claim 1, YOSHIDA (as primary reference) would be used to teach: discharging a process liquid (e.g., IPA) toward a substrate to cover the substrate with a liquid film (see Fig. 5H, ¶ 0140); a hole-forming step (see Fig. 5J, ¶¶ 0147-48) in which gas is discharged at a hole-forming flow rate (a small flow rate such as 5 L/min, ¶ 0148) towards the substrate’s central portion (see Fig. 5J, ¶¶ 0147-48); and a hole-widening step (see Fig. 5L, ¶¶ 0153-54) in which gas is discharged at a hole-widening flow rate (a large flow rate such as 80 L/min, ¶ 0153) towards the substrate’s central portion (see Fig. 5L, ¶¶ 0153-54). OKUTANI (as secondary reference) would be used to teach that the nozzle is located at a central lower position for the hole-forming step (see Figs. 9 & 10D, ¶ 0132) and the nozzle is located at a central upper position for the hole-widening step (see Figs. 9 & 10E, ¶ 0137).
The abovementioned § 103 rejection is not made at this time to avoid overly burdening Applicant. But such rejection may be presented in a future Office Action, depending on Applicant’s reply and/or claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OKUTANI et al. (US PGPUB 20170282210).
Regarding Claim 1, OKUTANI teaches a substrate processing method (see, e.g., Figs. 9, 10A-10F, ¶¶ 0117-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
1298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OKUTANI’s method comprising:
discharging processing liquid (organic solvent such as IPA) toward an upper surface of a substrate (substrate W) held horizontally (see Figs. 10A-10B, ¶¶ 0119, 0122) to cover an entire upper surface of the substrate with a liquid film (liquid film 150) which is a film of the processing liquid (see Figs. 10A-10B, ¶¶ 0119, 0122);
discharging gas (e.g., N2 gas) at a hole-forming flow rate (a low flow rate such as 3 L/min, see ¶ 0131, Fig. 9) from a central discharge port (port 81) of a fluid nozzle (nozzle 11) located at a central lower position (see Figs. 9 & 10D, ¶ 0132) which is a position above the substrate (see Fig. 10D), toward a central portion of the substrate’s upper surface (see Fig. 10D, ¶¶ 0131-32) to form at a central portion of the liquid film (liquid film 150) an exposing hole (hole 151) where the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate is exposed (see Fig. 10D, ¶¶ 0131-32);
discharging gas (e.g., N2 gas) at a hole-widening flow rate (a high flow rate such as 80 L/min, see ¶ 0142, Fig. 9) which is greater than the hole-forming flow rate (the low flow rate such as 3 L/min), from the central discharge port (port 81) of the fluid nozzle (nozzle 11) located at a central upper position (see Figs. 9 & 10E, ¶ 0137) which is a position higher than the central lower position (see Figs. 9 & 10E), toward the central portion of the substrate’s upper surface to widen an outer edge of the exposing hole (hole 151) up to an outer perimeter of the upper surface of the substrate (see Fig. 10E, ¶¶ 0137-38, 0142).
Regarding Claim 2, OKUTANI teaches the method of claim 1. OKUTANI teaches that discharging the gas (e.g., N2 gas) at the hole-widening flow rate (high flow rate such as 80 L/min) includes increasing a flow rate of the gas discharged from the central discharge port (port 81) up to the hole-widening flow rate (see Fig. 9, ¶¶ 0137, 0142, the gas is supplied at several intermediate flow rates, such as 30 L/min, before it’s increased to 80 L/min), when the fluid nozzle is located at the central upper position (see Figs. 9, 10E, the increases in flow rate occur while nozzle 11 is still at central upper position).
Regarding Claim 3, OKUTANI teaches the method of claim 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
616
1298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
OKUTANI teaches that discharging the gas (e.g., N2 gas) at the hole-widening flow rate (high flow rate such as 80 L/min) includes increasing the flow rate of the gas discharged from the central discharge port up to the hole-widening flow rate (as explained above) while increasing an increase in the flow rate (see annotated Fig. 9, the increase is exponential) of the gas per unit time as time passes (see id.), when the fluid nozzle is located at the central upper position (see Figs. 9, 10E, increasing flow rate while nozzle 11 is at central upper position).
Regarding Claim 4, OKUTANI teaches the method of claim 1. OKUTANI teaches covering the upper surface of the substrate with gas that has been discharged in a radial manner (see Fig. 10E, ¶ 0146, in step T6, substrate W is covered by gas streams 86 & 87 discharged radially from ports 82 & 83) from an annular discharge port (port 82 or 83) surrounding a vertical line (see Fig. 10E, ports 82 and 83 surround rotational axis A1) passing through the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate (see Figs. 2 & 10E, ¶ 0048, rotational axis A1 passes through central portion of substrate W), after the exposing hole has been formed (see Fig. 9, ¶ 0118, step T6 is performed after step hole-opening T4).
Regarding Claim 7, OKUTANI teaches the method of claim 1. OKUTANI teaches forming between the liquid film (liquid film 150) and the upper surface of the substrate a vapor layer (gas phase layer 152, see Figs. 12B, ¶¶ 0151-52) of the processing liquid that raises the liquid film from the upper surface of the substrate (see id.) by heating the substrate (see id.) before the exposing hole is formed (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0113-14, 0118, 0130-31, 0154, Fig. 9, substrate is heated in step T3, which starts before hole-opening step T4).
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKUTANI (as applied to Claim 1), in view of YOSHIDA et al. (US PGPUB 20190172733).
Regarding Claim 5, OKUTANI teaches the method of claim 1. OKUTANI teaches rotating the substrate (spin-drying step T7, see Figs. 9 & 10F, ¶ 0147) around a vertical rotational axis (axis A1) passing through the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate (see Fig. 2, ¶ 0048), after the outer edge of the exposing hole has been widened up to the outer perimeter of the upper surface of the substrate (spin-drying step T7 is performed after step T6, see Fig. 9; in step T6—which is an outer periphery liquid removing step—the outer edge of the hole is widened up to the outer perimeter of the substrate, see Fig. 10E, ¶¶ 0142, 0145).
OKUTANI does not explicitly teach that the substrate is rotated “while causing the central discharge port to discharge gas toward the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate at a drying flow rate which is higher than the hole-forming flow rate and lower than the hole-widening flow rate.”
But these features are already taught by the prior art. For example, YOSHIDA teaches:
a hole-forming step (see Fig. 5J, ¶¶ 0147-48) in which gas is discharged at a hole-forming flow rate (a small flow rate such as 5 L/min, ¶ 0148) towards the substrate’s central portion (see Fig. 5J, ¶¶ 0147-48);
a hole-widening step (see Fig. 5L, ¶¶ 0153-54) in which gas is discharged at a hole-widening flow rate (a large flow rate such as 80 L/min, ¶ 0153) towards the substrate’s central portion (see Fig. 5L, ¶¶ 0153-54);
a step of rotating the substrate (spin-drying step, see Fig. 5M, ¶ 0156) around a vertical rotational axis (axis A1) passing through the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate (see Figs. 5M & 2, ¶ 0070) while causing the central discharge port (port 71 of nozzle 18) to discharge gas toward the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate (see Fig. 5M, ¶ 0156) at a drying flow rate (a moderate flow rate such as 15 L/min, ¶ 0156) which is higher than the hole-forming flow rate (higher than a small flow rate such as 5 L/min) and lower than the hole-widening flow rate (lower than a large flow rate such as 80 L/min).
YOSHIDA also teaches that the step of rotating while discharging gas (see Fig. 5M, ¶ 0156) is performed after the outer edge of the exposing hole has been widened up to the outer perimeter of the upper surface of the substrate (see ¶ 0156, the spin-drying step is performed after removal of liquid film 150).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify OKUTANI to rotate the substrate while causing the central discharge port (i.e., OKUTANI’s port 81) to discharge gas toward the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate at a drying flow rate (e.g., a moderate flow rate such as 15 L/min) which is higher than the hole-forming flow rate and lower than the hole-widening flow rate, with reasonable expectation of drying the substrate. It’s already known in the prior art to perform a hole-forming step at a low flow rate (see OKUTANI; see YOSHIDA), perform a hole-widening step at a large flow rate (see OKUTANI; see YOSHIDA), and perform a spin-drying step on the substrate after the exposing hole has been widened up to the substrate’s outer perimeter (see OKUTANI; see YOSHIDA). It’s also known in the prior art to perform such spin-drying step while discharging gas from the central discharge port toward the substrate’s central portion at a moderate flow rate (see YOSHIDA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The step of discharging gas toward the substrate’s central portion, as incorporated into OKUTANI’s spin-drying step, would still perform the same function as before (e.g., drying the substrate), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of OKUTANI and YOSHIDA teaches the method of Claim 5. The combination also teaches covering the upper surface of the substrate with gas (see OKUTANI at Fig. 10F, ¶ 0147) that has been discharged at a flow rate (e.g., 100 L/min, see OKUTANI at ¶ 0119) in a radial manner (see id. at Fig. 10F, ¶ 0147) from an annular discharge port (port 82 or 83 of OKUTANI) surrounding a vertical line (axis A1 of OKUTANI) passing through the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate (see OKUTANI at Figs. 10F & 2, ¶ 0048), while rotating the substrate around the vertical rotational axis (see id. at Fig. 10F, ¶ 0147) and causing the central discharge port to discharge the gas toward the central portion of the upper surface of the substrate at the drying flow rate (as explained above) after the outer edge of the exposing hole has been widened up to the outer perimeter of the upper surface of the substrate (as explained above).
As explained above, the drying flow rate is a moderate flow rate such as 15 L/min, which is lower than the flow rate (e.g., 100 L/min) of the gas discharged in the radial manner from the annular discharge port.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights