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
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/24/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 7/24/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that undue diverse searching should not be required. This is not found persuasive because the consideration of undue burden is one that must be made by the examiner. Applicant’s arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive insofar as the searches are not co-extensive, as shown in the restriction requirement, and additional search would be of necessity for the combination of inventions (e.g. the difference species/inventions will require different search strategies including different fields of search and employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 6-8 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "…the individual gas supplies…" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurai et al. (US20220112603).
Regarding claim 1, Sakurai et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a substrate holder 31 configured to rotatably hold a substrate W (see paragraphs [0041]-[0053], figure 10); a nozzle 41a configured to discharge a mixed fluid onto the substrate W, the mixed fluid being a mixture of a fluid containing vapor or mist of pure water, a processing liquid containing at least sulfuric acid, and an inert gas (see Nitrogen) (see paragraphs [0105]-[0119], figures 3, 10); a fluid supply 45a configured to supply the fluid to the nozzle 41a (see paragraphs [0105]-[0119], figures 3, 10); a processing liquid supply 44 configured to supply the processing liquid to the nozzle 41a; a gas supply 45f configured to supply the inert gas to the nozzle 41a (see paragraphs [0105]-[0119], figures 3, 10); and a gas flow rate adjuster 45g/45h configured to adjust a flow rate of the inert gas supplied from the gas supply to the nozzle 41a (see paragraphs [0108]-[0110], figure 10).
Regarding claims 2, 3, Sakurai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sakurai et al. also teaches in figures 1, 17, paragraphs [0035]-[0036], [0105]-[0119], [0149]-[0153] a controller 4 configured to control the gas flow rate adjuster 45g/45h, wherein the controller 4 is capable of executing a temperature adjustment process of adjusting a temperature of the mixed fluid (see e.g. heat of hydration resulting from mixture of DIW mist and SPM as discussed in paragraph [0114]) discharged from the nozzle 41a by controlling the gas flow rate adjuster 45g/45h to adjust the flow rate of the inert gas supplied to the nozzle 41a (reads on claim 2), wherein the controller 4 is also capable of controlling flow rates (through control of valves 44b, 44e, 45c, 45g and flow regulators 44c, 44f, 45d, 45h) such that, in the temperature adjustment process, a flow rate of the fluid supplied from the fluid supply 45a and a flow rate of the processing liquid supplied from the processing liquid supply 44 are constant (reads on claim 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Sakurai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sakurai et al. also teaches in figures 3, 10 and paragraphs [0105]-[0119] a first mixer 45i located further upstream than the nozzle 41a and configured to mix the fluid supplied from the fluid supply 45a with the inert gas supplied from the gas supply 45f; and a second mixer (see area of nozzle 41a formed by cavity at 61, as shown in figure 3, also reads on fluid mixer of claim 10) located inside the nozzle 41a and configured to mix the fluid and the inert gas supplied in a mixed state from the first mixer 45i with the processing liquid supplied from the processing liquid supply 44.
Regarding claim 11, Sakurai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sakurai et al. also teaches in figures 5, 10, paragraphs [0061], [0114]-[0115] a second nozzle 41b that is different from a first nozzle 41a serving as the nozzle 41a; a rinse liquid supply 46a configured to supply a rinse liquid to the second nozzle 41b; and a controller 4, wherein the controller 4 is configured to: discharge the mixed fluid from the first nozzle 41a onto the substrate (see paragraph [0114]), discharge the rinse liquid from the second nozzle 41b to the substrate after the discharging the mixed fluid, and discharge the inert gas (via mist) from the first nozzle 41a onto the substrate during the discharging the rinse liquid.
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 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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US20220112603).
Regarding claim 6, Sakurai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sakurai et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0055]-[0058], [0013] and figures 2-10 that the nozzle 41a is an elongated nozzle extending linearly in a horizontal direction, and capable of discharging the mixed fluid from a discharge region extending in the horizontal direction, the gas supply includes a plurality of individual gas supply paths 48 disposed in the horizontal direction (see figures 3, 5, 7, 8) and capable of individually supplying the inert gas to the nozzle 41a, and the gas flow rate adjuster 45g/45h is capable of adjusting the flow rate of the inert gas supplied from the individual gas supplies to the nozzle 41a. Sakurai et al. does not explicitly teach that the gas flow rate adjuster includes a plurality of individual gas flow rate adjusters provided corresponding to the plurality of individual gas supply paths. 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 gas flow rate adjuster may include a plurality of individual gas flow rate adjusters corresponding to the plurality of individual gas supply paths so as to allow for the control of fluid flow through each individual gas supply path. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication 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 Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Sakurai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 6. Sakurai et al. also teaches in figures 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, paragraphs [0053], [0054], [0106]-[0119] that the nozzle 41a includes a fluid distribution path 48 connected to the fluid supply 45a and configured to distribute the fluid throughout the entire discharge region (see figure 5), a processing liquid distribution path 47 connected to the processing liquid supply 44 and configured to distribute the processing liquid throughout the entire discharge region (see figures 7, 8), and a plurality of individual gas distribution paths 48 provided corresponding to a plurality of individual discharge regions (see e.g. central region and peripheral regions of 41a, as shown in figures 5, 7, 8) that divide the discharge region in the horizontal direction and configured to distribute the inert gas supplied from the individual gas supply paths 48 to the individual discharge regions (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Sakurai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 7. Sakurai et al. also teaches in figures 5, 7, 8 that the plurality of individual discharge regions include a central discharge region, and an outer-circumferential discharge region. Sakurai et al. does not explicitly teach that the central discharge region corresponds to a central region located at a center of the substrate, and the outer-circumferential discharge region corresponds to an outer- circumferential region located at an outer circumference of the substrate. However, the relative locations of the regions of the wafer and the nozzle depends on the relative position of the nozzle and the wafer and the size and dimensions of the wafer, which are both matter of intended use, whereby 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). Furthermore, 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). Sakurai et al. does not explicitly teach that the flow rate of the inert gas supplied to the outer-circumferential discharge region is smaller than the flow rate of the inert gas supplied to the central discharge region. However, the modified system including individual gas flow rate adjusters corresponding to the plurality of individual gas supply paths is capable of controlling the flow rates at each of the individual gas supply paths, therefore, this is also a matter of intended use, whereby 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).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US20220112603) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hsu et al. (TW202410146A).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sakurai et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sakurai et al. does not explicitly teach a mover configured to move the nozzle in a horizontal direction. Hsu et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract) and a mover 104 configured to move the nozzle 141 in a horizontal direction, wherein the controller 18 controls the mover 104 to move the nozzle 141 while adjusting the flow rate of the fluid passing therethrough according to a horizontal position of the nozzle 141, thereby allowing for particularized control over the level of fluid application to various regions of the wafer (see pages 19-20 of the translation). Since both Sakurai et al. and Hsu et al. teach substrate treatment apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a mover may be included in the system by Sakurai et al. so as to allow for particularized control over the level of fluid application to various regions of the wafer, as shown to be known and conventional by Hsu et al. Hence, in the modified system of Sakurai et al., it is readily apparent that the controller would be capable of controlling the mover and the gas flow rate adjuster (whereby gas flow rate adjustment results in temperature adjustment, see e.g. heat of hydration resulting from mixture of DIW mist and SPM as discussed in paragraph [0114]) to adjust the flow rate of the inert gas such that the flow rate of the inert gas when the nozzle is located at an outer circumference of the substrate is smaller than the flow rate of the inert gas when the nozzle is located at a center of the substrate (reads on claim 5). Hence the particular application of a smaller flow rate at an outer circumference of the substrate than at a center of the substrate is merely a matter of intended use, whereby 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).
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