DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/13/26. These drawings are accepted.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn
Claim Interpretation
The 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of “energy spreader” is withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0083063 A1 [Shin] in view of JP H10323787 A [to Kubota], translation attached and cited to.
Regarding Claim 1:
Shin teaches a dry-type cleaning apparatus for wafers for dry cleaning of organic residues on a wafer surface (abstract), the dry-type cleaning apparatus comprising:
a laser emitting laser light; (Fig. 4 (110), para 47)
an optical collimator receiving the laser light emitted from the laser and generating a first collimated laser light (Fig. 4 (120));
a beam expander adjusting a diameter of the first collimated laser light passing through the energy spreader according to a diameter of a wafer to generate second laser light (Fig. 4 (130), para 79).
However, Shin fails to teach:
an energy spreader uniformizing an energy distribution of the first collimated light received from the optical collimator;
wherein the energy spreader is placed between the optical collimator and the beam expander such that the first collimated laser light travels through the energy spreader toward the beam expander.
Kubota teaches a system for processing a wafer with a laser (abstract), comprising a laser (Fig. 1 (1),
a collimator (Fig. 1 (2)),
an energy spreader uniformizing an energy distribution of the first collimated light received from the optical collimator (Fig. 1 (3), which is a diffractive grating with spreads the collimated light),
and a lens (5) which adjusts the diameter of the received light via focusing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the energy spreader of Kubota between the collimator and beam expander of Shin. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide an improved beam diameter and intensity distribution. Kubota abstract.
Regarding Claim 6:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the dry-type cleaning apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a first optical refractor refracting the first collimated laser light received from the optical collimator (window (5) of Shin is made of quartz. As such, it is inherently refracting light with respect to the atmosphere to which it passes light or from which it receives light.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The claim objection of record is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18 and 20 are allowed.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881