Patent Application 18328057 - SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE

Title: SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD

Application Information

Invention Title: SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE TREATING METHOD
Application Number: 18328057
Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-06-02T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-06-02T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 134
National Sub-Class: 026000
Examiner Employee Number: 94934
Art Unit: 1714
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 6

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending and subject to examination on the merits. Claims 13-16 have been cancelled. Claim 3 has been converted into an independent claim.

Response to Amendments
The claim objection and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (“Remarks”) filed on 04/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for reasons below.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claim 1 in view of MIYAMAWARI and WADA, Applicant contends that:
According to the Examiner’s analysis, the bottle 8 in WADA (EP 0792699 A2) corresponds to the claimed tank.
However, in WADA, the cleaning tank 9 is the element corresponding to the processing tank 1 in MIYAMAWARI. A marked-up copy of Fig. 2 of WADA is supplied below.
Also, the chamber 27 in MIYAMAWARI is considered to correspond to the casing 3 in WADA.
Also, the substrate W in MIYAMAWARI is considered to correspond to the bottle 8 in WADA.
Accordingly, it might be possible to assume that the Examiner is correct that in the cleaning art, it may be routine and conventional to immerse the substrate W in the processing tank 1 and to immerse the bottle 8 in the cleaning tank 9. (Remarks at 8-9; emphasis original)
This argument is not persuasive for several reasons.
First, the argument is not directed to the actual prior art rejection; it’s directed to a reconstructed 103 rejection not presented in the 01/15/2025 Non-Final Action.
Second, the limitation at the heart of combining MIYAMAWARI and WADA is the recited “chamber cleaning treatment,” i.e., the cleaning target is the chamber/tank, not the substrate. So it’s unclear why Applicant would draw parallels between MIYAMAWARI’s substrate W and WADA’s bottle 8, and between MIYAMAWARI’s tank 1 and WADA’s tank 9 (see Remarks at 8-9). Indeed, Applicant does not even dispute that MIYAMAWARI’s Fig. 6A, ¶¶ 0054-55, 0057 discloses the recited “chamber cleaning treatment, where the chamber including an outer wall of the process tank is cleaned, to be performed” (see Non-Final Action at ¶ 16), i.e., the cleaning target in MIYAMAWARI includes tank 1, which is a container. Likewise, the cleaning target in WADA is bottle 8, also a container. Therefore, it’s much more logical to draw parallels between MIYAMAWARI’s tank 1 and WADA’s bottle 8, and between MIYAMAWARI’s chamber 27 and WADA’s tank 9.
Applicant also contends that:
. . . neither MIYAMAWARI nor WADA describes immersing the processing tank 1 in the cleaning liquid stored in the chamber 27 and immersing the cleaning tank 9 in the cleaning liquid in the casing 3, i.e., "causing the process tank to be immersed in the cleaning liquid ... stored in the chamber" as now claimed. It is also considered not to be routine or conventional. (Remarks at 9)
This is not persuasive for several reasons. First, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, it’s the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA that teaches “causing the process tank to be immersed in the cleaning liquid . . . stored in the chamber” (see Non-Final Action at ¶¶ 18-19). Second, Applicant’s characterization of WADA is not based on the actual 103 rejection, as explained above.
Applicant further contends that:
It is also clear that the bottle 8 in WADA corresponds to multiple bottles 8 that move on the transport path, as shown in FIG. 1 of WADA, whereas the processing tank 1 in MIYAMAWARI is immovable. It is not possible to consider that the bottle 8 corresponds to the processing tank 1 in MIYAMAWARI i.e., the idea would not be conceivable without substantial modification of the references. (Remarks at 9)
This is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it’s logical to draw parallels between MIYAMAWARI’s tank 1 and WADA’s bottle 8 (as explained above). Second, Claim 1 does not require any specific manner of causing the process tank to be immersed in the cleaning liquid, and Examiner declines to read any limitations from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Third, Applicant does not explain the relevance of WADA’s bottle 8 moving on the transport path and MIYAMAWARI’s tank 1 being immovable. Fourth, MIYAMAWARI’s tank 1 can become immersed in the cleaning liquid in the chamber by simply closing drain valve 65—MIYAMAWARI already teaches supplying cleaning liquid into the chamber (see Non-Final Action at ¶ 16, providing citations)—so it’s unclear what “substantial modification of the references” Applicant refers to.
Lastly, Applicant’s argument regarding YAMAGUCHI, TWU, and WADA (see Remarks at 9) is not persuasive because it’s conclusory without any evidentiary support.
In sum, the arguments are not persuasive and the 103 rejections are maintained.

Examiner’s Comments
The current language of Claim 1 does not recite any particular manner of immersing the tank in the cleaning liquid. Relevant disclosures in the specification include the following:
During “chamber cleaning treatment” (see step S10 in Figs. 2-3, step S30 in Figs. 6-7) in which tank 2 is immersed in a cleaning liquid (e.g., pure water), drain valve V8 is closed (see step S10 in Fig. 3, step S30 in Fig. 7) while the water supply valve (valve V3 in Figs. 1-3, ¶ 0070, valve V1 in Figs. 5-7, ¶ 0105) is opened to supply the cleaning liquid into chamber 3, thereby raising/elevating/increasing the liquid level of the cleaning liquid within the chamber (see ¶ 0070, the liquid level “reaches a level slightly lower than the exhaust port 43”; see also ¶ 0105, the liquid level is “up to a position slightly lower than the opening 2C of the process tank 2, specifically slightly lower than the shield plate 63”).

Claim Objections
In Claim 1 at line 15, “where the chamber including an outer wall . . .” should be changed to “wherein the chamber including an outer wall . . .” to be consistent in the claim language.
In Claim 3 at line 7, the comma after “chamber” should be a semicolon.
In Claim 3 at line 18, “where the chamber including an outer wall . . .” should be changed to “wherein the chamber including an outer wall . . .” to be consistent in the claim language.
In Claim 3 at pg. 5 line 3-4, “where the water-repellent vapor is supplied . . .” should be changed to “wherein the water-repellent vapor is supplied . . .” to be consistent in the claim language.
In Claim 9 at line 2, “where the cleaning liquid is exhausted . . .” should be changed to “wherein the cleaning liquid is exhausted . . .” to be consistent in the claim language.

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 1-12 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 1 recites “the cleaning liquid supplied from the cleaning liquid nozzle and stored in the chamber” at lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because the claim earlier recites “causing the cleaning liquid nozzle to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber” without reciting any step of storing the cleaning liquid in the chamber.
Claim 3 recites “the cleaning liquid supplied from the cleaning liquid nozzle and stored in the chamber” at lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because the claim earlier recites “causing the cleaning liquid nozzle to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber” without reciting any step of storing the cleaning liquid in the chamber.
Claims 2 & 4-12 are rejected because they depend on Claim 1.

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 1, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIYAMAWARI et al. (Japanese Publication JP2015070148A, as translated by Espacenet), in view of WADA (European Publication EP0792699A2).
Regarding Claim 1, MIYAMAWARI teaches a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0016-18). MIYAMAWARI’s apparatus comprising:
a process tank (tank 1) configured to store a treatment liquid (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0018);
a chamber (chamber 27) configured to surround the process tank (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0019);
a solvent vapor nozzle (nozzle 33) configured to supply solvent vapor (e.g., IPA vapor) into the chamber (see Figs. 1, 2C, 4C-4D, 5A, ¶¶ 0020, 0036);
a cleaning liquid nozzle (nozzle 7) configured to supply a cleaning liquid (e.g., water) into the chamber (see Figs. 1, 2A, 4A, 6A, ¶¶ 0033, 0045, 0055);
a controller (control unit 75, see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0009-10, 0030-31).
MIYAMAWARI teaches the controller (control unit 75) causing immersion treatment, wherein a substrate (substrate W) is immersed and processed in the treatment liquid stored in the process tank (tank 1), to be performed for a preset period of time (see Figs. 2A, 4A, ¶¶ 0033, 0045). MIYAMAWARI teaches the controller (control unit 75) causing dry treatment, wherein the substrate (substrate W) after being processed with the treatment liquid and taken out of the process tank (tank 1) is dried with the solvent vapor supplied from the solvent vapor nozzle (IPA vapor from nozzle 33), to be performed (see Figs. 2D, 5A, ¶¶ 0037, 0050).
MIYAMAWARI teaches the controller (control unit 75) causing the cleaning liquid nozzle (nozzle 7) to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber (see Fig. 6A, ¶¶ 0054-55, 0057, under the control of control unit 75, water supplied by nozzle 7 overflows from tank 1 and into chamber 27) and causing the process tank (tank 1) to be immersed in the cleaning liquid supplied from the cleaning liquid nozzle (see id., water supplied by nozzle 7 overflows from tank 1 and covers the walls of tank 1, i.e., the tank is immersed in water), thereby causing chamber cleaning treatment, wherein the chamber (chamber 27) including an outer wall of the process tank (tank 1) is cleaned, to be performed (see id., the overflowing water contacts and cleans chamber 27 and the outer wall of tank 1).
MIYAMAWARI does not explicitly teach that the controller causes the process tank (tank 1) to be immersed in cleaning liquid “stored in the chamber.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the cleaning art to immerse a tank in a cleaning liquid stored in a chamber. See WADA at Fig. 3, col. 5 line 29-44 (immersing bottle 8 in water A, which is supplied and stored in chamber 9). By immersing the tank in the cleaning liquid stored in the chamber, ultrasonic waves can be propagated to the tank to enhance cleaning of the tank. See WADA at col. 2 line 22-37.
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 MIYAMAWARI to configure the controller (control unit 75) to store cleaning liquid in the chamber (chamber 27) and cause the process tank (tank 1) to be immersed in such cleaning liquid stored in the chamber, with reasonable expectation of enhancing cleaning effect. First, by immersing a tank in cleaning liquid stored in a chamber, ultrasonic waves can be propagated to the tank to enhance cleaning of the tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to store cleaning liquid in the chamber (chamber 27) and immerse the process tank (tank 1) in such cleaning liquid stored in the chamber. Second, it’s already well known in the cleaning art to: supply a cleaning liquid into a chamber (see MIYAMAWARI, supplying water into chamber 27; see WADA, supplying water A into chamber 9); store the cleaning liquid in the chamber (see WADA, storing water A in chamber 9); and immerse a tank in the cleaning liquid stored in the chamber (see WADA, immersing bottle 8 in water A stored in chamber 9). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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 immersing the process tank in the cleaning liquid stored in the chamber, as incorporated, would still perform the same function as before (e.g., cleaning the tank), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 1.
The combination teaches an air pump (exhaust pump 52 of MIYAMAWARI) configured to exhaust gas from the chamber (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 1, ¶ 0024).
The combination teaches the cleaning liquid nozzle (nozzle 7 of MIYAMAWARI) is located at a lower part of the chamber (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 1) for supplying the cleaning liquid into the chamber (as explained above; see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 6A, ¶¶ 0054-55, 0057).
The combination also teaches the controller (control unit 75 of MIYAMAWARI) causes the chamber cleaning treatment to be performed in a state where the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI) is decompressed (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 6A, ¶ 0055, gas inside chamber 27 is being exhausted through exhaust port 69).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI) is decompressed “with the air pump.” But a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that an air pump is connected to MIYAMAWARI’s exhaust port 69, because MIYAMAWARI teaches that exhaust is performed through exhaust port 69 (see ¶¶ 0028, 0033-34, 0038, 0042, 0046, 0055-56). In particular, MIYAMAWARI teaches the gas inside chamber 27 is exhausted through exhaust port 69 (see ¶¶ 0055-56), which suggests the existence of an air pump connected to exhaust port 69.
As one alternative ground, if decompressing the chamber (chamber 27) using an air pump connected to exhaust port 69 is not clearly envisaged by MIYAMAWARI’s teachings, it still would’ve been obvious to connect an air pump to MIYAMAWARI’s exhaust port 69 and using such air pump to decompress the chamber (chamber 27) during the chamber cleaning treatment. MIYAMAWARI already teaches an exhaust port 51A connected to an air pump 52 (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0024), which is used to exhaust gas from chamber 27 (see ¶¶ 0039, 0051). Applying the same technique to MIYAMAWARI’s exhaust port 69—i.e., connecting an air pump to exhaust port 69 and using it to exhaust gas from chamber 27—would’ve been obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-21; MPEP § 2143, C (the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious).
As another alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to decompress the chamber (chamber 27) with air pump 52 (which is connected to exhaust port 51A), with reasonable expectation of exhausting gas from the chamber during the chamber cleaning treatment. MIYAMAWARI teaches that chamber cleaning treatment is performed in a state where the chamber (chamber 27) is decompressed via exhaust port 69 (as explained above), and MIYAMAWARI also teaches the chamber can be decompressed via exhaust port 51A using air pump 52 connected thereto (see ¶¶ 0039, 0051). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, B. Both exhaust port 69 and exhaust port 51A serve the same function of exhausting gas from the chamber; as such, their substitution would yield the predictable result of exhausting gas from the chamber.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4. As explained above, the combination teaches the air pump (e.g., pump 52 or an air pump connected to exhaust port 69 of MIYAMAWARI) is configured to exhaust gas within the chamber via an exhaust port (e.g., exhaust port 51A or exhaust port 69 of MIYAMAWARI) provided in a side wall of the chamber laterally of the process tank (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 1). As explained above, the combination teaches the controller (control unit 75) causes the chamber cleaning treatment to be performed in a state where the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI) is decompressed while gas is exhausted from the chamber with the air pump.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4. The combination teaches a shield plate (plate 67 of MIYAMAWARI) provided between the outer wall of the process tank (tank 1 of MIYAMAWARI) and an inner wall of the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI) for shielding an atmosphere between an upper part of the chamber and the lower part of the chamber (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 1, ¶ 0027), and having an opening (gap G) through which part of a treatment liquid, flowing out of the process tank (tank 1), passes to the lower part of the chamber (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 1, ¶ 0027).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4.
The combination teaches the controller (control unit 75 of MIYAMAWARI) causes exhaust treatment, wherein the cleaning liquid is exhausted from an outlet (an outlet above MIYAMAWARI’s drain valve 65) in the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI), to be performed in a state where the chamber is decompressed (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 6B, ¶ 0056). The combination teaches the controller causes the chamber cleaning treatment and the exhaust treatment to be repeated at a preset number of times (see MIYAMAWARI at ¶ 0057).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI) is decompressed “with the air pump.” As explained above, it’s reasonably expected that an air pump is connected to MIYAMAWARI’s exhaust port 69, or it would’ve been obvious to connect an air pump to exhaust port 69, or it would’ve been obvious to use MIYAMAWARI’s air pump 52 (which is connected to MIYAMAWARI’s exhaust port 51A) to decompress the chamber.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4. The combination teaches an inert gas nozzle (nozzle 34 of MIYAMAWARI) configured to supply inert gas into the chamber (see MIYAMAWARI at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0020, 0023). The combination teaches the controller (control unit 75 of MIYAMAWARI) causes the inert gas nozzle (nozzle 34) to supply the inert gas into the chamber after the dry treatment to return pressure of the decompressed chamber to atmospheric pressure (see MIYAMAWARI at Figs. 5B-5C, ¶¶ 0051-52).

Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGUCHI et al. (US PGPUB 20180090343), in view of TWU et al. (US Patent 6405452) and WADA (European Publication EP0792699A2).
Regarding Claim 1, YAMAGUCHI teaches a substrate treating apparatus for treating a substrate (see Fig. 1, abstract, ¶ 0031). YAMAGUCHI’s apparatus comprises:
a process tank (tank 20) configured to store a treatment liquid (see ¶ 0034);
a chamber (chamber 10) configured to surround the process tank (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0033);
a solvent vapor nozzle (nozzle 52, 53) configured to supply solvent vapor (e.g., IPA vapor) into the chamber (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0032);
a cleaning liquid nozzle (nozzle 55), which is structurally fully capable of supplying a cleaning liquid into the chamber (see Fig. 1, a liquid can overflow from tank 20 into chamber 10); and
a controller (control unit 80) configured to control the various operations of the apparatus (see ¶¶ 0045-46).
YAMAGUCHI teaches the controller (control unit 80) causing immersion treatment (one or more of steps S1, S2, and S3), wherein a substrate (substrate W) is immersed and processed in the treatment liquid stored in the process tank (tank 20), to be performed for a preset period of time (see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0048-50). YAMAGUCHI teaches the controller (control unit 80) causing dry treatment (one or more of steps S8 and S9), wherein the substrate after being processed with the treatment liquid and taken out of the process tank is dried with the solvent vapor supplied from the solvent vapor nozzle (IPA vapor from nozzles 52, 53), to be performed (see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0055-56).
YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach the controller (control unit 80) “causing the cleaning liquid nozzle to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber and causing the process tank to be immersed in the cleaning liquid supplied from the cleaning liquid nozzle and stored in the chamber, thereby causing chamber cleaning treatment, where the chamber including an outer wall of the process tank is cleaned, to be performed.”
TWU teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Fig. 2, abstract), just like the present application. TWU teaches a process tank (tank 42) surrounded by a chamber (chamber formed by sidewall 68), wherein a cleaning liquid nozzle (outlet of conduit 76) is positioned in the chamber but outside the tank (see Fig. 2), wherein the nozzle is adjacent to the tank (see Fig. 2). TWU teaches using the cleaning liquid nozzle to supply a cleaning liquid into the chamber (chamber formed by sidewall 68), thereby causing a chamber cleaning treatment (see Fig. 2, col. 6 line 44-55)—wherein the chamber including an outer wall of the process tank is cleaned (see id., removing residue)—to be performed. TWU teaches performing the chamber cleaning treatment when the substrate is pulled out of the tank (see Fig. 2).
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 YAMAGUCHI to incorporate a cleaning liquid nozzle positioned in the chamber but outside the tank and use such nozzle (under the control of control unit 80) to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber (wherein the chamber including an outer wall of the process tank is cleaned) when the substrate is pulled out of the tank, with reasonable expectation of causing chamber cleaning treatment to be performed.
First, a cleaning liquid nozzle (positioned in the chamber but outside the tank) allows cleaning of the tank and the chamber; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such nozzle and use it to clean the tank and the chamber.
Second, it’s well known in the art for a substrate processing apparatus to have a cleaning liquid nozzle positioned in the chamber but outside the tank (see TWU); wherein the nozzle is used to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber (e.g., the chamber including an outer wall of the process tank is cleaned) when the substrate is pulled out of the tank, thereby causing chamber cleaning treatment to be performed (see TWU); and wherein a controller controls the various operations of the apparatus (see YAMAGUCHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them 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 cleaning nozzle as incorporated would perform the same function as before (e.g., supplying cleaning liquid into the chamber), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of YAMAGUCHI and TWU: the controller (control unit 80 of YAMAGUCHI) would be configured for “causing the cleaning liquid nozzle to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber . . . thereby causing chamber cleaning treatment, where the chamber including an outer wall of the process tank is cleaned, to be performed”; and the chamber cleaning treatment would be performed when the substrate is pulled out of the tank (e.g., during one or more of YAMAGUCHI’s steps S4, S5, S6, etc.).
The combination of YAMAGUCHI and TWU does not explicitly teach the controller (YAMAGUCHI’s control unit 80) “causing the process tank to be immersed in the cleaning liquid supplied from the cleaning liquid nozzle and stored in the chamber.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the cleaning art to immerse a tank in a cleaning liquid stored in a chamber. See WADA at Fig. 3, col. 5 line 29-44 (immersing bottle 8 in water A, which is supplied and stored in chamber 9). By immersing the tank in the cleaning liquid stored in the chamber, ultrasonic waves can be propagated to the tank to enhance cleaning of the tank. See WADA at col. 2 line 22-37.
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 the combination of YAMAGUCHI and TWU to configure the controller (YAMAGUCHI’s control unit 80) to store the cleaning liquid supplied from the cleaning liquid nozzle into the chamber (YAMAGUCHI’s chamber 10) and to cause the process tank (YAMAGUCHI’s tank 20) to be immersed in such cleaning liquid stored in the chamber, with reasonable expectation of enhancing cleaning effect.
First, by immersing the tank in a cleaning liquid supplied and stored in the chamber, ultrasonic waves can be propagated to the tank to enhance cleaning of the tank. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to immerse the process tank (YAMAGUCHI’s tank 20) in the cleaning liquid, which is supplied from the cleaning liquid nozzle into the chamber (as explained above, see TWU) and then stored in the chamber (YAMAGUCHI’s chamber 10).
Second, it’s already well known in the cleaning art to supply a cleaning liquid into a chamber (see TWU; see WADA); store the cleaning liquid supplied into the chamber (see WADA); immerse a tank in the cleaning liquid stored in a chamber (see WADA); wherein a controller controls the various operations of the substrate treating apparatus (see YAMAGUCHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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 steps of storing the cleaning liquid and immersing the tank in the store cleaning liquid, as incorporated, would still perform the same function as before (e.g., cleaning the tank), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of YAMAGUCHI, TWU, and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 1.
As explained above, the combination teaches the controller (YAMAGUCHI’s control unit 80) causing immersion treatment (one or more of YAMAGUCHI’s steps S1, S2, and S3) and dry treatment (one or more of YAMAGUCHI’s steps S8 and S9) to be performed.
As explained above, the combination teaches performing the chamber cleaning treatment when the substrate is pulled out of the tank (e.g., during one or more of YAMAGUCHI’s steps S4, S5, S6, etc.). This means the controller (control unit 80 of YAMAGUCHI) causes the chamber cleaning treatment (using YAMAGUCHI’s step S4 as a non-limiting example) to be performed after the immersion treatment (after YAMAGUCHI’s step S1, S2, or S3), and causes the dry treatment (using YAMAGUCHI’s step S8 as a non-limiting example) to be performed after the chamber cleaning treatment (after YAMAGUCHI’s step S4).

Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of YAMAGUCHI, TWU, and WADA (as applied to Claim 1 above), in further view of MIYAMAWARI.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of YAMAGUCHI, TWU, and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 1.
As explained above, the combination teaches the controller (control unit 80 of YAMAGUCHI) causes the chamber cleaning treatment to be performed.
As explained above, the combination teaches the cleaning liquid nozzle supplies the cleaning liquid into the chamber (YAMAGUCHI’s chamber 10); wherein the cleaning liquid nozzle is located adjacent to the processing tank (see TWU at Fig. 2); and wherein the processing tank (YAMAGUCHI’s tank 20) is located at a lower part of the chamber (see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 1). In other words, the combination teaches the cleaning liquid nozzle is located at lower part of the chamber for supplying the cleaning liquid into the chamber.
The combination also teaches an air pump (YAMAGUCHI’s pump 90) configured to exhaust gas from the chamber (see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0046, 0049).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller (YAMAGUCHI’s control unit 80) causes the chamber cleaning treatment to be performed “in a state where the chamber is decompressed with the air pump.”
MIYAMAWARI teaches a substrate treating apparatus (see Fig. 1) comprising: a process tank (tank 1); a chamber (chamber 27) surrounding the tank; an air pump (exhaust pump 52) configured to exhaust gas from the chamber (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0024); and a plurality of exhaust ports (e.g., port 69, port 51A) located adjacent to the tank (see Fig. 1).
MIYAMAWARI teaches a controller (control unit 75) causing a cleaning liquid nozzle to supply cleaning liquid into a chamber (chamber 27), thereby causing chamber cleaning treatment—wherein the chamber including an outer wall of the process tank (tank 1) is cleaned—to be performed (see Fig. 6A, ¶¶ 0054-55, 0057). MIYAMAWARI teaches that the chamber cleaning treatment is performed in a state where the chamber is decompressed through one of the exhaust ports (see Fig. 6A, ¶ 0055, gas inside chamber 27 is being exhausted through exhaust port 69). By exhausting the chamber, droplets and particles can be discharged outside the chamber, thereby preventing contamination (see ¶ 0057).
As explained above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that an air pump is connected to MIYAMAWARI’s exhaust port 69, because MIYAMAWARI teaches that exhaust is performed through exhaust port 69 (see ¶¶ 0028, 0033-34, 0038, 0042, 0046, 0055-56). In particular, MIYAMAWARI teaches the gas inside chamber 27 is exhausted through exhaust port 69 (see ¶¶ 0055-56), which suggests the existence of an air pump connected to exhaust port 69. Additionally, MIYAMAWARI explicitly teaches that air pump 52 is connected to exhaust port 51A (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0024), which is used to exhaust gas from the chamber (see ¶¶ 0039, 0051).
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 the combination of YAMAGUCHI, TWU, and WADA to perform chamber cleaning treatment “in a state where the chamber is decompressed with the air pump,” with reasonable expectation of preventing contamination. First, by using the air pump to exhaust the chamber during the chamber cleaning treatment, droplets and particles can be discharged outside the chamber, thereby preventing contamination. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to perform the chamber cleaning treatment in a state where the chamber is decompressed with the air pump. Second, it’s well known in the art to perform the chamber cleaning treatment in a state where the chamber is decompressed with the air pump (see MIYAMAWARI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them 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, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of YAMAGUCHI, TWU, WADA, and MIYAMAWARI teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4. As explained above, the combination teaches the controller (YAMAGUCHI’s control unit 80) causing the chamber cleaning treatment to be performed when the substrate is pulled out of the tank (during one or more of YAMAGUCHI’s steps S4, S5, etc., see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 4). The combination also teaches that when the substrate is pulled out of the tank, the solvent vapor nozzle (YAMAGUCHI’s nozzle 52, 53) supplies the solvent vapor into the chamber (see YAMAGUCHI at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0051-52, supplying IPA vapor). In other words, the combination teaches the controller causing the chamber cleaning treatment to be performed when the solvent vapor nozzle (YAMAGUCHI’s nozzle 52, 53) supplies the solvent vapor into the chamber.

Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA (as applied to Claim 4 above), in further view of SUZUKI (US Patent 5651836).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4.
The combination does not explicitly teach “the cleaning liquid nozzle is located at a bottom of the chamber at a position overlapping the process tank in plan view.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to place a cleaning liquid nozzle at a bottom of a chamber at a position overlapping a process tank in plan view. See SUZUKI at Fig. 2, col. 9 lines 27-45, 53-61. In particular, SUZUKI teaches a substrate treating apparatus comprising a tank 31 surrounded by chamber 21; wherein nozzle 23 is located at a bottom of chamber 21 directly below tank 31 (i.e., overlapping the tank in plan view); and wherein nozzle 23 supplies an upward flow towards tank 31 (see Fig. 2, col. 9 lines 27-45, 53-61).
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 the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA to incorporate a cleaning liquid nozzle located at a bottom of the chamber at a position overlapping the process tank in plan view, with reasonable expectation of supplying a flow toward the tank. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional to place a cleaning liquid nozzle at a bottom of a chamber at a position overlapping a process tank in plan view (see SUZUKI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The nozzle as incorporated would perform the same function as before (e.g., supplying cleaning liquid into the chamber), thereby yielding predictable results.

Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA (as applied to Claim 4 above), in further view of TWU et al. (US Patent 6405452).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4.
As explained above, the combination teaches the controller (control unit 75 of MIYAMAWARI) causing the cleaning liquid nozzle (nozzle 7 of MIYAMAWARI) to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI) in a state where the chamber is decompressed. As explained above, although the combination does not explicitly teach that the chamber is decompressed “with the air pump,” it’s reasonably expected that an air pump is connected to MIYAMAWARI’s exhaust port 69, or it would’ve been obvious to connect an air pump to exhaust port 69, or it would’ve been obvious to use MIYAMAWARI’s air pump 52 (which is connected to exhaust port 51A) to decompress the chamber.
The combination does not explicitly teach that: the cleaning liquid nozzle is “located in a posture toward the outer wall of the process tank” and the cleaning liquid nozzle supplies the cleaning liquid into the chamber “while the cleaning liquid hits the outer wall of the process tank.”
TWU teaches a substrate treating apparatus (see Fig. 2, abstract), just like the present application. TWU teaches a cleaning liquid nozzle (outlet of conduit 76) located in a posture toward an outer wall of a process tank 42 (see Fig. 2, col. 6 line 44-55), wherein the cleaning liquid nozzle supplies a cleaning liquid into a chamber (chamber formed by sidewall 68) while the cleaning liquid hits the outer wall of the process tank (see id.). By positioning the nozzle at such location and using the nozzle to supply a cleaning liquid that hits the outer wall of the tank, residues can be removed from the tank (see id.).
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 the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA to incorporate a cleaning liquid nozzle located in a posture toward the outer wall of the process tank and use such nozzle during the chamber cleaning treatment (i.e., supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber while the cleaning liquid hits the outer wall of the process tank), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the tank and the chamber.
First, by placing a nozzle in a posture toward the outer wall of the process tank and using the nozzle to supply a cleaning liquid that hits the outer wall of the process tank, residue on the tank can be removed. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a cleaning liquid nozzle located in a posture toward the outer wall of the process tank and use such nozzle during the chamber cleaning treatment.
Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional in the cleaning art to have a cleaning liquid nozzle located in a posture toward the outer wall of the process tank and use such nozzle to supply the cleaning liquid into the chamber while the cleaning liquid hits the outer wall of the process tank (see TWU). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The nozzle as incorporated would perform the same function as before (e.g., supplying cleaning liquid into the chamber), thereby yielding predictable results.

Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA (as applied to Claim 4 above), in further view of MASAKI et al. (US PGPUB 20050178409).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA teaches the substrate treating apparatus according to claim 4. As explained above, the combination teaches using a cleaning liquid nozzle to supply cleaning liquid into the chamber (chamber 27 of MIYAMAWARI).
The combination does not explicitly teach: “a nozzle cover provided at a bottom in the chamber to face an upward ejection port of the cleaning liquid nozzle, wherein the nozzle cover includes a ceiling wall, and a plurality of side walls connected to the ceiling wall and formed with holes through which the cleaning liquid passes.”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to provide a nozzle cover at a bottom in a chamber to face an upward ejection port of a nozzle, wherein the nozzle cover includes a ceiling wall, and a plurality of side walls connected to the ceiling wall and formed with holes through which a liquid passes. See MASAKI at Fig 1, ¶¶ 0026-29. In particular, MASAKI teaches a nozzle (having an upward ejection port 5) provided at a bottom in a chamber (bath 1); a nozzle cover (distribution portion 10, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0026) also provided at the bottom in the chamber (see id.); wherein the nozzle cover faces the upward ejection port of the nozzle (see id.); wherein the nozzle cover includes a ceiling wall (opposing portion 8, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0028), and a plurality of side walls (surrounding portions 6) connected to the ceiling wall (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0029) and formed with holes through which the cleaning liquid passes (see Fig. 1). The nozzle cover (distribution portion 10) has several benefits, such as providing pressure uniformity and suppressing turbulent flow in the chamber (see ¶ 0033).
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 the combination of MIYAMAWARI and WADA to incorporate a cleaning liquid nozzle (with an upward ejection port) and a nozzle cover positioned at a bottom in the chamber (chamber 27)—wherein the nozzle cover faces the upward ejection port; wherein the nozzle cover includes a ceiling wall, and a plurality of side walls connected to the ceiling wall and formed with holes through which the cleaning liquid passes—with reasonable expectation of supplying cleaning liquid to the chamber. First, a nozzle cover has several benefits, such as providing pressure uniformity and suppressing turbulent flow; given these benefits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to provide a nozzle cover at a bottom in the chamber to face an upward ejection port of the cleaning liquid nozzle. Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to have a nozzle (with an upward ejection port) and a nozzle cover positioned at a bottom in the chamber, wherein the nozzle cover faces the upward ejection port, and wherein the nozzle cover includes a ceiling wall, and a plurality of side walls connected to the ceiling wall and formed with holes through which the cleaning liquid passes. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The nozzle with an upward ejection port and a nozzle cover, as incorporated, would still perform the same function as before (e.g., supplying cleaning liquid into the chamber), thereby yielding predictable results.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter. Claim 3 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) and the 112(b) rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The most relevant prior art references are: YAMAGUCHI, MIYAMAWARI, and TWU. YAMAGUCHI teaches an immersion treatment (one or more of steps S1–S3), a water-repellent vapor supply treatment (one or more of steps S6–S8), and a dry treatment (one or more of steps S8–S9). Each of MIYAMAWARI and TWU teaches a chamber cleaning treatment.
But the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the subject matter of Claim 3. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the specific timing of the chamber cleaning treatment as recited in Claim 3, i.e., the chamber cleaning treatment is performed after the water-repellent vapor supply treatment and before the dry treatment.

Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

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 on (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.

/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714

/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714