DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/11/2026 has been entered and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Scheir teaches a UV radiation emitting lamp used for dealing with undesired material within a chamber (Scheir Paragraph 26). This is in the same field of endeavor as the applicant’s inventor which teaches using a UV drying unit capable of efficiently treating components inside a process chamber (Paragraphs 5-6 of applicant’s specification filed 11/09/2021).
Applicant further argues that ‘claim 1 is explicitly directed to a "drying unit for removing a moisture or undesired gases from a process chamber." Nothing in Scheir speaks to a "drying unit for removing a moisture or undesired gases from a process chamber." Scheir does not even include the word "dry", or any variation thereof.’ (Page 8 of applicant’s remarks filed 08/11/2026). Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “drying unit for removing a moisture or undesired gases from a process chamber” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Furthermore, even if said limitation was limiting, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Scheir teaches of a UV light lamp system which outputs UVC wavelength (Scheir Paragraph 14) which is well understood in the art to range from 100nm to 280nm. Applicant’s specification recites that the light source used for performing the function of removing gas or moisture from the chamber outputs ultraviolet light in the range of 100 nm to 400 nm (Paragraph 67 of applicant’s specification filed 11/09/2021), wherein the moisture removing occurs between 110nm to 150nm (Paragraph 70 of applicant’s specification filed 11/09/2021). Since Scheir structurally outputs light within the same wavelength range as that cited by the applicant, there is no structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that the prior art would be capable of perform the function of removing gas or moisture from a chamber. The Office further notes that using ultraviolet wavelengths of 185nm and 254nm are known in the art to be capable of the desorption of water modules, or removal of moisture, from a surface as evidenced by Column 3 Lines 53-61 of Danielson (US 4660297 A).
Applicant further argues that ‘the Office alleges that Scheir’s power supply 135 is analogous to the “control member’ recited in claim 1 (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 08/11/2026). However, the Office is alleging that the third member 120, a plurality of power supplies formed integrally within third member 120 (as can be seen Figure 1 of Scheir), and a battery pack supplying power to said power supply 135 reasonably constitutes a “control member”. While the location of the battery pack is not specified, it is clear from Figures 1 and 3 of Scheir that the third member 120 and plurality of power supplies formed integrally within third member 120 are positioned between a first and second light source. As such, at least a portion of the control member of Scheir is disposed between the first and second light sources, and thus the prior art reasonably reads upon the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheir (US 20060284109 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) teaches a drying unit for removing a moisture or undesired gases from a process chamber (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, germicidal lamp retards buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and suns undesirable organisms; would be fully capable of removing moisture or undesired gas), which comprises:
a first light source and a second light source (Figure 1 Paragraph 13, one or a plurality of germicidal lamps 154), the first light source including a first light-transmissive container (Paragraph 16, electric discharge lamps refer to an apparatus which emits radiation caused by an electric discharge from electrodes in an enclosure wherein the enclosure is at least partially translucent and constructed of glass), and the second light source including a second light-transmissive container (Paragraph 16, electric discharge lamps refer to an apparatus which emits radiation caused by an electric discharge from electrodes in an enclosure wherein the enclosure is at least partially translucent and constructed of glass); and
a control member (Figure 2 Paragraph 34, third member as a base; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 is integral with the third member 120; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 receiver power from a battery pack) including, (i) a battery configured to power the first light source and the second light source (Paragraph 40, power supply 135 receiver power from a battery pack; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 supplies power to a plurality of germicidal lamps 154; battery pack and power supply can reasonably be considered part of the control member), and (ii) a control circuit for controlling the first light source and the second light source (Paragraph 39, power supply includes a ballast which acts as a control unit and controls the power that drives the germicidal lamp 154),
wherein the control member, the first light source, and the second light source are stacked together to form a stacked structure (Figure 3, third member 120 including the plurality of power supplies 135 formed integrally with it is stacked together with the stems 150 of the plurality of germicidal lamp 154), the control member being disposed between the first light source and the second light source (Figure 3, third member 120 is disposed between pairs of germicidal lamps 154), the control member including a sidewall having a top edge and a bottom edge (Scheir Annotated Figure 3, top edge and bottom edge of the third member 120), the top edge being coupled to the first light source and the bottom edge being coupled to the second light source (Paragraph 36, third member 120 includes one or a plurality of clasps 175 which provide mechanical supports to the steps of the germicidal lamps);
PNG
media_image1.png
742
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Scheir Annotated Figure 3; bottom edge and top edge are indicated to which two electric discharge lamps are respectively in contact with
wherein the drying unit is configured to be moved by a transferring member (Paragraph 30, displacement device including wheels or other movement devices is affixed to the first member 140 for moving the mobile germicidal system) for transferring a substrate into the process chamber (Paragraphs 28-30, first member 140 is fully capable of transferring a substrate into a chamber or room; Paragraph 13, mobile germicidal system may be readily moved into or out of rooms; Paragraph 28, first member may be a pedestal of a manager’s office chair which can reasonably be interpreted as a substrate).
Regarding claim 2, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1, wherein
the process chamber includes an etching chamber, a deposition chamber, a sputtering chamber, a coating chamber, a developing chamber, a cleaning chamber (Paragraphs 13-14, mobile germicidal system can be moved into rooms wherein the retardation buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and/or stunning of undesirable organisms occurs) or a drying chamber.
Regarding claim 3, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1, wherein
the drying unit configured to remove moisture or undesired gases from components that are installed in the process chamber (Paragraphs 45-49, germicidal lamps 154 emit UVC radiation toward the walls and ceiling of the room which reasonably can be considered components which are installed in the room).
The Office further notes that using ultraviolet wavelengths of 185nm and 254nm are known in the art to be capable of the desorption of water modules, or removal of moisture, from a surface as evidenced by Column 3 Lines 53-61 of Danielson (US 4660297 A).
Regarding claim 5, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 4, wherein
the drying unit is configured to be loaded into the process chamber and unloaded from the process chamber by using the transferring member for transferring the substrate into the process chamber (Paragraphs 28-30, first member 140 is fully capable of transferring a substrate into a chamber or room; Paragraph 13, mobile germicidal system may be readily moved into or out of rooms).
Regarding claim 7, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1, wherein
the first light-transmissive container includes a transparent ceramic selected from the group consisting of quartz (Paragraph 16, enclosure may be constructed of quartz), transparent alumina and transparent lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT).
Regarding claim 8, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1, wherein
at least one of the first light source and the second light source is configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) light having a wavelength of about 100 nm to about 400 nm (Paragraph 14, germicidal wavelength may be at UVC wavelength at 254nm).
Regarding claim 12, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1, wherein
the first light source and the second light source emit UV lights having a same wavelength range (Claim 20, at least two germicidal lamps emitting radiation at wavelength substantially at 253.7nm).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1, wherein
the drying unit has the same shape and dimensions as the substrate (Paragraphs 27-29, first member 140 is capable of carrying a substrate of the same shape and dimensions as the mobile germicidal system 100; Paragraph 28, first member 140 may be a pedestal of a manager’s office chair).
While Scheir fails to explicitly teach of a manager’s office chair or other furniture which has same shape and dimensions as the substrate, the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having a drying unit the same shape and dimensions as a particular office chair is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20180055959 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1.
Scheir fails to explicitly teach:
the first light source and the second light source emit UV lights having different wavelength ranges, respectively.
Lin (US 20180055959 A1) teaches a multiwavelength ultraviolet light sanitizing system, wherein:
the first light source and the second light source emit UV lights having different wavelength ranges (Paragraph 25, UV light sanitization system emits multiple high energy, narrow bands of different types of UV light), respectively.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Lin and have the first and second light sources emit UV lights having different wavelengths. This would have been done to selectively target multiple particular types of microbes which may be present (Lin Paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 14, 18-19, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheir (US 20060284109 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) teaches a process chamber (room) for processing a desired process on a substrate (applying cleaning to furniture in room), which comprises:
a housing providing a processing space therein (Paragraph 48, room for which the mobile germicidal system performs cleaning);
a supporting unit installed in the housing for supporting the substrate (Paragraph 30, displacement device including wheels or other movement devices is affixed to the first member 140 for moving the mobile germicidal system; Paragraph 69, some buildings have no manufacturing flooring and thus an installed flooring can reasonably be considered a supporting unit installed in the room); and
a drying unit (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, germicidal lamp retards buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and suns undesirable organisms; would be fully capable of removing moisture or undesired gas) placed on the supporting unit instead of the substrate such that the supporting unit supports the drying unit (Paragraphs 28-30, mobile germicidal system 100 would be moved along and supported by the floor), the drying unit removing a moisture or undesired gases from components that are installed in the process chamber (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, germicidal lamp retards buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and suns undesirable organisms),
wherein the drying unit includes a first light source, a second light source, and a control member (Figure 2 Paragraph 34, third member as a base; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 is integral with the third member 120; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 receiver power from a battery pack) that are stacked together to form a stacked structure (Figure 3, third member 120 including the plurality of power supplies 135 formed integrally with it is stacked together with the stems 150 of the plurality of germicidal lamp 154), the control member being disposed between the first light source and the second light source (Figure 3, third member 120 is disposed between pairs of germicidal lamps 154), the control member including a sidewall having a top edge and a bottom edge (Scheir Annotated Figure 3, top edge and bottom edge of the third member 120), the top edge being coupled to the first light source and the bottom edge being coupled to the second light source (Paragraph 36, third member 120 includes one or a plurality of clasps 175 which provide mechanical supports to the steps of the germicidal lamps), the control member (Figure 2 Paragraph 34, third member as a base; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 is integral with the third member 120) including, (i) a battery configured to power the first light source and the second light source (Paragraph 40, power supply 135 receiver power from a battery pack; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 supplies power to a plurality of germicidal lamps 154; can reasonably be considered part of the control member), and (ii) a control circuit for controlling the first light source and the second light source (Paragraph 39, power supply includes a ballast which acts as a control unit and controls the power that drives the germicidal lamp 154),
PNG
media_image1.png
742
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Scheir Annotated Figure 3; bottom edge and top edge are indicated to which two electric discharge lamps are respectively in contact with
wherein the drying unit is configured to be moved by a transferring member (Paragraph 30, displacement device including wheels or other movement devices is affixed to the first member 140 for moving the mobile germicidal system) for transferring a substrate onto the support unit (Paragraphs 28-30, first member 140 is fully capable of transferring a substrate into a chamber or room; Paragraph 13, mobile germicidal system may be readily moved into or out of rooms; Paragraph 28, first member may be a pedestal of a manager’s office chair which can reasonably be interpreted as a substrate).
While Scheir does not explicitly teach of substrate in the form of furniture positioned in the room, it is well known in the art to have furniture inside rooms which are desirably cleaned by UV light and wherein the application of UV light to decontamination surfaces of a room apply to exposed surfaces of furniture or other objects in the room as evidenced by Paragraph 171 of BRAIS (US 20170049915 A1).
The Office further notes that using ultraviolet wavelengths of 185nm and 254nm are known in the art to be capable of the desorption of water modules, or removal of moisture, from a surface as evidenced by Column 3 Lines 53-61 of Danielson (US 4660297 A).
Regarding claim 18, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 14, wherein:
the first light source and the second light source emit UV lights having a same wavelength range (same wavelength; Claim 20, at least two germicidal lamps emitting radiation at wavelength substantially at 253.7nm), or UV lights having different wavelength ranges, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, germicidal lamp retards buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and suns undesirable organisms; processing a component within the room), which comprises:
a processing module including at least one process chamber (room) for processing a desired process on a substrate (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, germicidal lamp retards buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and suns undesirable organisms; would be capable of performing this process on a substrate in the room);
an index module (Paragraph 30, displacement device including wheels or other movement devices is affixed to the first member 140 for moving the mobile germicidal system) for transferring the substrate from an outside into the processing module (Paragraphs 28-30, first member 140 is fully capable of transferring a substrate into a chamber or room; Paragraph 13, mobile germicidal system may be readily moved into or out of rooms; Paragraph 28, first member may be a pedestal of a manager’s office chair which can reasonably be interpreted as a substrate); and
a drying unit for removing a moisture or undesired gases from the at least one process chamber (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, germicidal lamp retards buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and suns undesirable organisms), wherein the drying unit includes a first light source, a second light source, and a control member (Figure 2 Paragraph 34, third member as a base; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 is integral with the third member 120; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 receiver power from a battery pack) that are stacked together to form a stacked structure (Figure 3, third member 120 including the plurality of power supplies 135 formed integrally with it is stacked together with the stems 150 of the plurality of germicidal lamp 154), the control member being disposed between the first light source and the second light source (Figure 3, third member 120 is disposed between pairs of germicidal lamps 154), the control member including a sidewall having a top edge and a bottom edge (Scheir Annotated Figure 3, top edge and bottom edge of the third member 120), the top edge being coupled to the first light source and the bottom edge being coupled to the second light source (Paragraph 36, third member 120 includes one or a plurality of clasps 175 which provide mechanical supports to the steps of the germicidal lamps), the control member (Figure 2 Paragraph 34, third member as a base; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 is integral with the third member 120) including: (i) a battery that is configured to power the first light source and the second light source (Paragraph 40, power supply 135 receiver power from a battery pack; Paragraph 40, power supply 135 supplies power to a plurality of germicidal lamps 154; can reasonably be considered part of the control member), and (ii) a control circuit for controlling the first light source and the second light source(Paragraph 39, power supply includes a ballast which acts as a control unit and controls the power that drives the germicidal lamp 154),
PNG
media_image1.png
742
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Scheir Annotated Figure 3; bottom edge and top edge are indicated to which two electric discharge lamps are respectively in contact with
wherein the index module is further configured to transfer the drying unit from the outside into the processing module (Paragraph 30, displacement device including wheels or other movement devices is affixed to the first member 140 for moving the mobile germicidal system),
wherein the drying unit (Figure 1 Paragraph 14, germicidal lamp retards buildup or accumulation of undesired substances and suns undesirable organisms; would be fully capable of removing moisture or undesired gas) is loaded into the process chamber and unloaded from the process chamber (Paragraph 13, mobile germicidal system 100 may be readily moved into and out of rooms or areas of a building or structure), and
wherein the drying unit has the same shape and dimensions as the substrate (Paragraphs 27-29, first member 140 is capable of carrying a substrate of the same shape and dimensions as the mobile germicidal system 100; Paragraph 28, first member 140 may be a pedestal of a manager’s office chair).
While Scheir fails to explicitly teach that the manager’s office chair or other furniture has same shape and dimensions as the substrate, the MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having a drying unit the same shape and dimensions as a particular office chair is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, while Scheir does not explicitly teach of substrate in the form of furniture positioned in the room, it is well known in the art to have furniture inside rooms which are desirably cleaned by UV light and wherein the application of UV light to decontamination surfaces of a room apply to exposed surfaces of furniture or other objects in the room as evidenced by Paragraph 171 of BRAIS (US 20170049915 A1).
Additionally, while Scheir does not explicitly teach “wherein the drying unit is loaded into the process chamber and unloaded from the process chamber instead of the substrate before the substrate is loaded into the process chamber or after the substrate is unloaded from the process chamber”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have moved furniture into and out of the room before and/or after the germicidal lamp is moved into and out of rooms. This would have been done to prevent shadows from covering certain parts of a room which are desirably exposed to UV light (Scheir Paragraph 43).
The Office further notes that using ultraviolet wavelengths of 185nm and 254nm are known in the art to be capable of the desorption of water modules, or removal of moisture, from a surface as evidenced by Column 3 Lines 53-61 of Danielson (US 4660297 A).
Regarding claim 24, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 14, wherein:
the drying unit has the same shape and dimensions as the substrate (Paragraphs 27-29, first member 140 is capable of carrying a substrate of the same shape and dimensions as the mobile germicidal system 100).
The MEPE teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04.IV.A. In this case, having a drying unit the same shape and dimensions as the substrate is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20180055959 A1), Finkenzeller U. (Deuterium lamp as a UV continuum source from 160nm to 320nm for space applications, 1979), and University of New Hampshire (LAMP AND SLEEVE, 2016).
Regarding claim 21, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1.
Scheir fails to teach:
the first light-transmissive container is filled with a heavy hydrogen gas and the second light-transmissive container filled with a different gas.
Lin (US 20180055959 A1) teaches a multiwavelength ultraviolet light sanitizing system, wherein:
the first light-transmissive container outputs one wavelength and the second light-transmissive container outputs a second wavelength (Paragraph 25, UV light sanitization system emits multiple high energy, narrow bands of different types of UV light)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Lin and have the first and second light sources emit UV lights having different wavelengths. This would have been done to selectively target multiple particular types of microbes which may be present (Lin Paragraph 52).
Scheir as modified fails to explicitly teach “the first light-transmissive container is filled with a heavy hydrogen gas and the second light-transmissive container filled with a different gas”. However, it is well known in the art that UV lamps having different gases have different wavelength ranges, for example the output of the deuterium lamps are known in the art to have a wavelength range of 160nm to 330nm (Page 1 of Finkenzeller U., Deuterium lamp as a UV continuum source from 160nm to 320nm for space applications) while the wavelength out of low-pressure lamps are known to output nearly monochromatic light at 253.7m which would make them ideal for outputting the desired wavelength (University of New Hampshire, LAMP AND SLEEVE, 2016). It would have thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Scheir and have the second light-transmissive container be a low-pressure lamp filled with a different gas such as to provide a monochromatic light at the desired wavelength of 253.7 (Scheir Paragraph 14 Claim 20) and have the first light-transmissive container be filled with deuterium with a wavelength range of 160nm to 330nm such as to emit different wavelengths to selectively target multiple particular types of microbes which may be present (Lin Paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 22, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 14.
Scheir fails to teach:
the first light source includes a first light-transmissive container that is filled with a heavy hydrogen gas and the second light source includes a second light-transmissive container that is filled with a different gas.
Lin (US 20180055959 A1) teaches a multiwavelength ultraviolet light sanitizing system, wherein:
the first light source includes a first light-transmissive container outputs one wavelength and the second light source includes a second light-transmissive container outputs a second wavelength (Paragraph 25, UV light sanitization system emits multiple high energy, narrow bands of different types of UV light)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Lin and have the first and second light sources emit UV lights having different wavelengths. This would have been done to selectively target multiple particular types of microbes which may be present (Lin Paragraph 52).
Scheir as modified fails to explicitly teach “the first light source includes a first light-transmissive container that is filled with a heavy hydrogen gas and the second light source includes a second light-transmissive container that is filled with a different gas”. However, it is well known in the art that UV lamps having different gases have different wavelength ranges, for example the output of the deuterium lamps are known in the art to have a wavelength range of 160nm to 330nm (Page 1 of Finkenzeller U., Deuterium lamp as a UV continuum source from 160nm to 320nm for space applications) while the wavelength out of low-pressure lamps are known to output nearly monochromatic light at 253.7m which would make them ideal for outputting the desired wavelength (University of New Hampshire, LAMP AND SLEEVE, 2016). It would have thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Scheir and have the second light-transmissive container be a low-pressure lamp filled with a different gas such as to provide a monochromatic light at the desired wavelength of 253.7 (Scheir Paragraph 14 Claim 20) and have the first light-transmissive container be filled with deuterium with a wavelength range of 160nm to 330nm such as to emit different wavelengths to selectively target multiple particular types of microbes which may be present (Lin Paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KIM (KR 20150138975 A).
Regarding claim 25, Scheir teaches the drying unit of claim 1.
The Office argues that the substrate is not a positively recited component of the drying unit and thus any drying unit, such as that taught by Scheir, which is capable of being moved by a transferring member, which is also capable of moving a substrate into a process chamber, would read upon the claim.
Although the Office does not concede the point, the applicant may argue that Scheir fails to explicitly teach:
the substrate is used to manufacture an integrated circuit device or a display device, and wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a silicon wafer, a glass substrate, and an organic substrate.
KIM (KR 20150138975 A) teaches a substrate processing apparatus involving removably inserting an ultraviolet supply member into a housing for holding a substrate such as to clean said housing with short-wavelength ultraviolet light (Paragraphs 85-86), wherein:
the substrate is used to manufacture an integrated circuit device or a display device (Paragraph 29, substrate S is used to manufacture semiconductor devices, displays, and other objects in which circuits are formed on thin films), and wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a silicon wafer, a glass substrate, and an organic substrate (Paragraph 29, substrate S includes silicon wafers, glass substrates, and organic substrates).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with KIM and have drying unit be selectively inserted into a chamber for processing a substrate as described above. This would have been done to clean the housing by moving the ultraviolet supply unit to a process position after processing the first substrate in the housing (KIM Paragraph 86). The Office notes that Scheir teaches that the lamp is of a UVC wavelength, or in other words ranging from 100nm to 280nm (Scheir Paragraph 14), which satisfies the requirement of a short-wavelength ultraviolet light of KIM (KIM Paragraph 85).
The Office further notes that the substrate is not a positively recited component of the drying unit and thus any drying unit, such as that taught by Scheir, which is capable of being moved by a transferring member, which is also capable of moving a substrate into a process chamber, would read upon the claim.
The Office further notes that using a single robot to move both a UV light source and a substrate into a process chamber is known in the art as evidenced by Column 5 Lines 19-41 and Column 6 Lines 37-61 of Parke (US 6098637 A).
Claim(s) 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KIM (KR 20150138975 A) and Parke (US 6098637 A).
Regarding claim 26, Scheir teaches the process chamber of claim 14.
The Office argues that the substrate is not a positively recited component of the process chamber and thus any drying unit, such as that taught by Scheir, which is capable of being moved by a transferring member and being supported by a supporting unit, which are also capable of moving/supporting a substrate into a process chamber, would read upon the claim.
Although the Office does not concede the point, the applicant may argue that Scheir fails to explicitly teach:
the substrate is used to manufacture an integrated circuit device or a display device, and wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a silicon wafer, a glass substrate, and an organic substrate.
KIM (KR 20150138975 A) teaches a substrate processing apparatus involving removably inserting an ultraviolet supply member into a housing for holding a substrate such as to clean said housing with short-wavelength ultraviolet light (Paragraphs 85-86), wherein:
wherein the drying unit is loaded into the process chamber and unloaded from the process chamber instead of the substrate before the substrate is loaded into the process chamber or after the substrate is unloaded from the process chamber (Paragraph 86, controller cleans the housing by moving the ultraviolet supply unit to a processing position after the first substrate has been processed and removed from the housing)
the substrate is used to manufacture an integrated circuit device or a display device (Paragraph 29, substrate S is used to manufacture semiconductor devices, displays, and other objects in which circuits are formed on thin films), and wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a silicon wafer, a glass substrate, and an organic substrate (Paragraph 29, substrate S includes silicon wafers, glass substrates, and organic substrates).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with KIM and have drying unit be selectively inserted into a chamber for processing a substrate as described above. This would have been done to clean the housing by moving the ultraviolet supply unit to a process position after processing the first substrate in the housing (KIM Paragraph 86). The Office notes that Scheir teaches that the lamp is of a UVC wavelength, or in other words ranging from 100nm to 280nm (Scheir Paragraph 14), which satisfies the requirement of a short-wavelength ultraviolet light of KIM (KIM Paragraph 85).
While Scheir modified with Kim fails to explicitly teach that “a supporting unit installed in the housing for supporting the substrate; and a drying unit placed on the supporting unit instead of the substrate such that the supporting unit supports the drying unit” and “the drying unit is configured to be moved by a transferring member for transferring the substrate onto the supporting unit”, Parke (US 6098637 A) teaches an apparatus for cleaning the surface in a semiconductor substrate processing chamber, wherein a single robot transfers both a UV light source and a substrate into a process chamber (Parke Column 5 Lines 19-41 and Column 6 Lines 37-61) wherein lift pins are used to support a UV radiation source (Parke Column 6 Lines 38-54) as well as a the substrate (Parke Column 5 Lines 34-41). Furthermore, a plurality of actuators support and move both the UV light source and substrate within the process chamber. It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Parke and have a support unit support both the substrate and the drying unit. This would have been done to reduce the number of parts necessarily to facilitate movement of the substrate and drying unit within the chamber.
Regarding claim 28, Scheir teaches the apparatus of claim 19.
The Office argues that the substrate is not a positively recited component of the apparatus and thus any drying unit, such as that taught by Scheir, which is capable of having the same dimensions as a substrate and which is capable of being transferred by an index module, which is also capable of moving a substrate into a process chamber, would read upon the claim.
Although the Office does not concede the point, the applicant may argue that Scheir fails to explicitly teach:
the substrate is used to manufacture an integrated circuit device or a display device, and wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a silicon wafer, a glass substrate, and an organic substrate.
KIM (KR 20150138975 A) teaches a substrate processing apparatus involving removably inserting an ultraviolet supply member into a housing for holding a substrate such as to clean said housing with short-wavelength ultraviolet light (Paragraphs 85-86), wherein:
wherein the drying unit is loaded into the process chamber and unloaded from the process chamber instead of the substrate before the substrate is loaded into the process chamber or after the substrate is unloaded from the process chamber (Paragraph 86, controller cleans the housing by moving the ultraviolet supply unit to a processing position after the first substrate has been processed and removed from the housing)
the substrate is used to manufacture an integrated circuit device or a display device (Paragraph 29, substrate S is used to manufacture semiconductor devices, displays, and other objects in which circuits are formed on thin films), and wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a silicon wafer, a glass substrate, and an organic substrate (Paragraph 29, substrate S includes silicon wafers, glass substrates, and organic substrates).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with KIM and have drying unit be selectively inserted into a chamber for processing a substrate as described above. This would have been done to clean the housing by moving the ultraviolet supply unit to a process position after processing the first substrate in the housing (KIM Paragraph 86). The Office notes that Scheir teaches that the lamp is of a UVC wavelength, or in other words ranging from 100nm to 280nm (Scheir Paragraph 14), which satisfies the requirement of a short-wavelength ultraviolet light of KIM (KIM Paragraph 85).
While Scheir modified with Kim fails to explicitly teach that “an index module for transferring the substrate from an outside into the processing module”, “the index module is further configured to transfer the drying unit from the outside into the processing module”, and “wherein the drying unit has the same shape and dimensions as the substrate”, Parke (US 6098637 A) teaches an apparatus for cleaning the surface in a semiconductor substrate processing chamber, wherein a single robot transfers both a UV light source and a substrate into a process chamber (Parke Column 5 Lines 19-41 and Column 6 Lines 37-61). Furthermore, Parke teaches that the UV radiation source can have the same shape and size as the substrate being moved (Parke Column 6 Lines 37-41). Scheir teaches that the shape and dimensions of the lamp are selectable based on user preference including that of the stem (Scheir Paragraph 20), germicidal lamp (Scheir Paragraph 26), first member (Scheir Paragraph 28), second member (Scheir Paragraph 31), third member (Scheir Paragraph 35), and fourth member (Scheir Paragraph 41). Since the dimensions and shape of all relevant parts of the germicidal lamp are taught by Scheir to be selectable based on user preference, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Parke and have the drying unit and substrate comprise the same shape and dimensions. This would have been done as a result of obvious engineering choice. It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Parke and have a single robot index module transfer both the drying unit and the substrate. This would have been done to reduce the number of parts needed.
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheir (US 20060284109 A1) as applied to claims 14 and 19 above, and further in view of Parke (US 6098637 A).
Regarding claim 27, Scheir teaches the process chamber of claim 14.
The Office argues that the substrate is not a positively recited component of the process chamber and thus any drying unit, such as that taught by Scheir, which is capable of being used with a space intended for etching would read upon the claim.
Although the Office does not concede the point, the applicant may argue that Scheir fails to explicitly teach:
the desired process includes an etching process performed on the substrate in the processing space.
Parke (US 6098637 A) teaches a cleaning of surfaces within a vacuum processing chamber using ultraviolet light with wavelengths including 253.7nm (Column 5 Line 66 – Column 6 Line 8), wherein:
the desired process includes an etching process performed on the substrate in the processing space (Column 3 Lines 21-26, chamber in which the ultraviolet light source and substrate are inserted into is an etch chamber; Column 7 Lines 25-28, used to implement an etching process).
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Parke and have the UV light source perform cleaning in a chamber wherein an etching process is performed within said chamber. This would have been done to perform cleaning in an etching chamber (Parke Column 2 Lines 17-21) for etching (Parke Column 7 Lines 25-28).
The Office notes that Scheir teaches that the lamp is of a UVC wavelength, or in other words ranging from 100nm to 280nm (Scheir Paragraph 14), which satisfies the desired wavelengths of 253.7nm and 184.9nm of Parke which is used for cleaning (Parke Column 5 Lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 29, Scheir teaches the apparatus of claim 19.
The Office argues that the substrate is not a positively recited component of the apparatus and thus any drying unit, such as that taught by Scheir, which is capable of being used with a space intended for etching would read upon the claim.
Although the Office does not concede the point, the applicant may argue that Scheir fails to explicitly teach:
the desired process includes an etching process performed on the substrate in the at least one process chamber.
Parke (US 6098637 A) teaches a cleaning of surfaces within a vacuum processing chamber using ultraviolet light with wavelengths including 253.7nm (Column 5 Line 66 – Column 6 Line 8), wherein:
the desired process includes an etching process performed on the substrate in the processing space (Column 3 Lines 21-26, chamber in which the ultraviolet light source and substrate are inserted into is an etch chamber; Column 7 Lines 25-28, used to implement an etching process).
It would have further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheir with Parke and have the UV light source perform cleaning in a chamber wherein an etching process is performed within said chamber. This would have been done to perform cleaning in an etching chamber (Parke Column 2 Lines 17-21) for etching (Parke Column 7 Lines 25-28).
The Office notes that Scheir teaches that the lamp is of a UVC wavelength, or in other words ranging from 100nm to 280nm (Scheir Paragraph 14), which satisfies the desired wavelengths of 253.7nm and 184.9nm of Parke which is used for cleaning (Parke Column 5 Lines 61-65).
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights