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 group I claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/02/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/22/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024-046115 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 08/21/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024-139464 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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- 3, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0069633 to SUZUKI ET AL in view of JP 2009219997 to TOKOSHIMA.
With regard to claims 1-3 and 7, SUZUKI teaches a processing method ([0032]-[-[0034]) comprising: supplying processing liquid to a substrate ([0033]); and dissolving dissolution gas in the processing liquid wherein the processing liquid is in contact with the substrate ([0033]-[0034]).
SUZUKI does not teach that the dissolving of the dissolution gas occurs by splitting the gas through a plurality of passages of a splitter and the surface of the splitter is in contact with the processing liquid. However it is known in the art to use a gas permeable membrane (splitter) to aid in the production of a processing liquid having a dissolved gas, as taught by TOKOSHIMA ([0024] and fig. 1). A skilled artisan would recognize that gas permeable membrane would have a plurality of passages that are open to the surface. The use of the membrane in TOKOSHIMA helps prevent gas concentrations from fluctuating in the processing liquid ([0017]). TOKOSHIMA teaches dissolving the dissolution gas in the processing liquid includes causing the dissolution gas that has split to discharge from a contact portion of the surface of the membrane into the processing liquid by causing the dissolution gas to flow in the plurality of passages from a noncontact portion of the surface of the membrane in a state in which the contact portion of the membrane is in contact with the processing liquid away from the substrate and the noncontact portion of the splitter is away from the substrate ([0029]-[0030] and fig. 1), as required by claim 2. TOKOSHIMA teaches dissolving the dissolution gas in the processing liquid includes filling a gas area that is an area on an opposite side of the processing liquid with respect to the splitter with the dissolution gas ([0029]-[0030] and fig. 1), as required by claim 3. TOKOSHIMA further teaches dissolving the dissolution gas in the processing liquid includes dissolving the dissolution gas, that has split due to entering the plurality of passages of the splitter, in the processing liquid in a state in which the surface of the splitter is in contact with the processing liquid in a tank, and supplying the processing liquid to the substrate includes supplying the substrate with the processing liquid supplied from the tank ([0024], [0029]-[0030] and fig. 1), as required by claim 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of SUZUKI to include the use of a gas permeable membrane (splitter) in the preparation of the processing liquid and application of the dissolution gas and processing liquid to prepare the processing liquid, as taught by TOKOSHIMA, with reasonable expectation of success to reduce fluctuations in gas concentrations in the processing liquid.
With regard to claim 9, as noted above, TOKOSHIMA teaches the membrane is a gas permeable membrane ([0024]) which is a porous body.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0069633 to SUZUKI ET AL in view of JP 2009219997 to TOKOSHIMA in view of US 2022/0199432 to LEE.
With regard to claim 8, while TOKOSHIMA teaches supplying the processing liquid to the tank by increasing the pressure in the tank a value at which the processing liquid in the tank is discharged from the tank toward the substrate after the dissolution gas has been dissolved in the processing liquid in the tank ([0029]-[0030]), neither SUZUKI nor TOKOSHIMA explicitly teach supplying the processing liquid to the substrate includes increasing gas pressure in the tank to a value at which the processing liquid in the tank is discharged from the tank toward the substrate by supplying inert gas into the tank after the dissolution gas has dissolved in the processing liquid in the tank. However, it is known in the art to increase the gas pressure in the tank to a value at which the processing liquid in the tank is discharged from the tank toward the substrate by supplying inert gas to a processing liquid that has dissolved gas in it, as taught by LEE ([0122], [0125], and [0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pressurization of the processing liquid in the method taught by SUZUKI/TOKOSHIMA to include the supplying of inert gas to the tank to create the pressurization, as taught by LEE, with reasonable expectation of success to prevent any further gas from dissolving into the processing liquid and altering the concentration of the processing liquid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is:
US 2023/0069633 to SUZUKI ET AL ([0033]-[0034], [0093] [0145]-[0147], [0159], [0162]-[0163]), US 2022/0199432 to LEE ([0076], [0122], [0125], and [0148]), and US 2024/0162060 to INABA ET AL (fig. 1, ([0080]-[0099]) which teach the method of preparing a processing liquid with a dissolved gas and using a cleaning liquid to clean a substrate.
JP 2009219997 to TOKOSHIMA teaches the use of a membrane (splitter) in creating a processing liquid with dissolved gas ([0058], [0022]-[0024], [0029]-[0030]).
US 2025/0246453 to KAMMURI ET AL teaches supplying cleaning liquid to a processing liquid tank ([0243]-[0245], fig. 10-13).
However, the method as instantly claimed, distinguishes over the prior art as none of the prior art references have the cleaning liquid (a different liquid from the processing liquid) supplied to a splitter. Specifically none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests fairly the limitation of causing a contact portion of the surface of the splitter to be in contact with the cleaning liquid in contact with the substrate in the context of claim 4. It is the examiner’s position that without the use of inappropriate hindsight or destroying the references for their intended purpose, it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art references in the manner required by the instant claims.
No other prior art that anticipates or suggests fairly the instant claims has been located as of the date of this action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN W SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-5545. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
KATELYN W. SMITH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
