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 II (claims 12-20) in the reply filed on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “chamber is configured” in line 4 should apparently be replaced with “chamber configured”; the phrase “keep moisture” in line 6 should apparently be replaced with “keeps moisture”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “one or more substrates” in line 2 should apparently be replaced with “substrate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 and 18 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 17 recites the limitation "the process station" in 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the phrase “process station” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear exactly what this is referring to. If it is meant to refer to the “process chamber” of claim 1, then it is unclear why claim 18 recites both “process station” and “process chamber”.
The term “low pressure” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 12, 14-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0377951 to Taddei et al. (“Taddei”) in view of US 2018/0100128 to Park et al. (“Park”) and in further view of US 2019/0067047 to Tanizawa et al. (“Tanizawa”).
Regarding claim 12, Taddei teaches a system for removing organic materials from a substrate wherein the organic materials comprise at least one of photoresist, temporary bonding materials, adhesives, fluxes, and their respective residues (abstract, para [0001]), the system comprising: an immersion station having an immersion chamber (ref. 210, para [0038]) is configured to immerse the substrate in a first fluid; a process chamber having a spray arm that comprises a high-velocity spray nozzle (ref. 220 and 320, para [0033]), and wherein the high-velocity spray nozzle is configured to spray the substrate with a second fluid; and a transfer arm (ref. 500, para [0036], [0040]) configured to transport the substrate between stations, wherein the immersion station and process station are configured to remove organic materials from the surfaces of the substrate via immersion in first fluid and spraying of the second fluid, respectively (note para [0042]).
Taddei does not explicitly teach a nitrogen inlet, wherein introduction of nitrogen into the immersion chamber keeps moisture and contaminants out of the immersion chamber to maximize the effectiveness of the first fluid and to prevent corrosion on the substrate; wherein the first fluid is incompatible with stainless steel; wherein the process chamber is configured to hold the substrate via a chuck; and wherein the second fluid is incompatible with stainless steel.
Park teaches cleaning formulations for removing residues (abstract, para [0009]) and discloses formulation fluids that are incompatible with stainless steel (para [0052], note, e.g., benzenesulfonic acid). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Taddei system in view of Park wherein the first fluid and second fluids comprise benzenesulfonic acid, and are thus incompatible with stainless steel, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is disclosed as effective for removing residues.
Tanizawa teaches a substrate processing system (abstract, para [0001]) including a nitrogen inlet (ref. 10, incl. ref. 80, 81, 82, para [0095]) and configured to hold a substrate via a chuck (Fig. 1, ref. 5, para [0126]), whereby blown nitrogen and chuck rotation enhance cleaning (para [0006], [0009]). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Taddei/Park system in view of Tanizawa wherein it includes a nitrogen inlet; and wherein the process chamber is configured to hold the substrate via a chuck, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning. Since Taddei/Park/Tanizawa system includes the claimed structural features and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed system, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in a manner wherein introduction of nitrogen into the immersion chamber keeps moisture and contaminants out of the immersion chamber to maximize the effectiveness of the first fluid and to prevent corrosion on the substrate
Regarding claim 14, Taddei does not explicitly teach the system wherein the spray arm is configured to form an angle of 30 degrees or lower relative to a horizontal reference plane for discharging the second fluid towards the substrate via the high-velocity spray nozzle. However, Taddei discloses a need for improved cleaning (para [0027]). Since, the angle of spray will affect the cleaning, the angle is a result-effective variable, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimize the spray arm / horizontal plane angle through routine experimentation with predictable results. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 15, Taddei/Park/Tanizawa disclose a system wherein the chuck of the process chamber is a spin chuck (Tanizawa, Fig. 1, ref. 5, para [0126]), but do not explicitly teach the system wherein the spin chuck is configured to spin the substrate during spraying of the substrate with the second fluid. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Taddei/Park/Tanizawa system wherein the spin chuck is configured to spin the substrate during spraying of the substrate with the second fluid, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning (note Taddei, para [0027], Tanizawa, para [0006], [0009]).
Regarding claim 16, Taddei/Park/Tanizawa disclose a spin chuck (Tanizawa, Fig. 1, ref. 5, para [0126]), and further disclose a final drying process (Taddei, para [0045]), but do not explicitly teach a spin station comprising a spin chuck, wherein the spin chuck is configured to spin dry the substrate to remove remnants of the second fluid from the surface of the substrate. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Taddei/Park/Tanizawa system wherein it includes a second spin chuck, or a spin station comprising a spin chuck, wherein the spin chuck is configured to spin dry the substrate to remove remnants of the second fluid from the surface of the substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to remove liquid from the substrate for final drying (note Taddei, para [0045], Tanizawa, para [0006]).
Regarding claim 19, Taddei disclose a system wherein the high-velocity spray nozzle can include interchangeable nozzles to allow an operator to change spray characteristics, e.g., high-force linear spray versus slower dispersed spray, or higher velocity spray versus lower velocity spray (para [0033]), but does not explicitly teach the system wherein the high-velocity spray nozzle is configured to spray fluid on the one or more substrates at a velocity of approximately 500-8,000 inches per second. However, since the higher velocity spray risks insufficient coverage and damage to the equipment and/or substrate, while the lower velocity spray risks insufficient debris removal and waste of time, the spray velocity is a result-effective variable, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimes the spray nozzle velocity through routine experimentation with predictable results. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 20, Taddei/Park/Tanizawa does not explicitly teach the system wherein the high-velocity spray nozzle is configured to accept heated solvent at a pressure of approximately 10 - 100 PSI and nitrogen at a pressure of approximately 10-100 PSI. However, since the Taddei/Park/Tanizawa system includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, i.e. wherein the high-velocity spray nozzle accepts heated solvent at a pressure of approximately 10 - 100 PSI and nitrogen at a pressure of approximately 10-100 PSI.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0377951 to Taddei et al. (“Taddei”) in view of US 2018/0100128 to Park et al. (“Park”) and US 2019/0067047 to Tanizawa et al. (“Tanizawa”) and in further view of US 2021/0260630 to Suzuki (“Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 13, Taddei does not explicitly teach the system wherein the immersion station is comprised of perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polypropylene, or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), or combinations thereof. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was known in the art as an effective component for immersion stations (see, e.g., Suzuki at, inter alia, para [0002], [0030]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Taddei/Park/Tanizawa system as was known wherein the immersion station is comprised of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it was known as effective for immersion stations.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0377951 to Taddei et al. (“Taddei”) in view of US 2018/0100128 to Park et al. (“Park”) and US 2019/0067047 to Tanizawa et al. (“Tanizawa”) and in further view of US 2005/0205111 to Ritzdorf et al. (“Ritzdorf”)
Regarding claim 17, Taddei does not explicitly teach a recycle tank in fluid communication with the immersion station and\or the process station, wherein the recycle tank is configured to receive run-off of the second fluid in the process station, and to transmit the received second fluid back to the process station as recycled fluid, and wherein the second fluid is the recycled fluid. Ritzdorf teaches a recycle tank (Fig. 3, ref. 164, para [0035]) in fluid communication with an immersion station and/or process station, wherein the recycle tank is configured to receive run-off of fluid and transmit the received fluid back as recycled fluid (para [0035]). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Taddei/Park/Tanizawa system in view of Ritzdorf wherein it includes a recycle tank in fluid communication with the immersion station and\or the process station, wherein the recycle tank is configured to receive run-off of the second fluid in the process station, and to transmit the received second fluid back to the process station as recycled fluid, and wherein the second fluid is the recycled fluid, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit waste (note Ritzdorf, para [0007]).
Regarding claim 18, Taddei/Park/Tanizawa/Ritzdorf as modified discloses a system wherein the high-velocity spray nozzle or a low pressure nozzle of the process chamber are further configured to dispense additional fluid on the substrate at the process station after spraying with the second fluid, wherein the additional fluid comprises a fresh fluid that displaces the recycled fluid on the substrate (Taddei, para [0045]).
Conclusion
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