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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta (US 2007/0295355) in view of Zimmerman et al (US 8,764,905).
Ikuta teaches a method.
The method incudes irradiating the substrate 2 with the light from the light source 22.
The method also comprises application of the cleaning solution to the substrate 2.
The light is disclosed as having the intensity, which comprises the range recited by the amended claims (at least [0034], [0094]).
Moreover, Ikuta teaches the intensity as a result effective variable (at least [0094-95]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum intensity of light in the method of Ikuta by routine experimentation depending from specifics of the application, such as the type of the contamination, type of the substrate and type of the light source used to ensure proper removal of the contamination and to prevent damage to the substrate.
The method is disclosed as conducted at pressures at the chamber for UV cleaning slightly above (5 mm H2O, which is 0.049 kPa) the pressure in the chamber liquid cleaning (at least [0075]).
Ikuta does not exemplify the absolute pressures.
However, Zimmerman et al teach that it was known to conduct UV cleaning with fluids and lights as disclosed by Ikuta at the pressures as claimed (at least column 8, lines 24-26; column 3, lines 22-55).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to conduct the method of Ikuta at the absolute pressures recited by Zimmerman et al in order to use a known solution for its known purpose.
AS to claims 2-3:
The light is disclosed as having the claimed wavelength (at least [0033], [0040], [0085], [0087], [0092-93], Examples.
AS to claims 5-6:
Ikuta, as applied above, does not specifically teach of the use of two or more light sources.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the use of multiple light sources.
Further, Ikuta is concerned about uniformity/distribution of the intensity of light (see at least Figures 2 and 5 and the related description).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use multiple light sources in the method of Ikuta in order to ensure proper distribution of the intensity of the light in the method of Ikuta.
As to claim 6:
Providing multiple identical light sources in the method of Ikuta will obviously result in uniform intensity value as claimed, since the use of two identical lamps will meet the claimed limitation.
As to claims 9 and 12:
The method is disclosed as using the solutions as claimed, including the claimed ozone, water, hydroxyl radical precursors, etc. (at least [0032], [0041], [0053-58], [0066-71], [0076-79], [0083], [0086], [0094], [0100]).
See at least Figures 1, 3-4 and the related description and the description at [0031-100].
AS to claim 11:
Since the step of the modified method of Ikuta are the same as claimed. The results of the method are the same as claimed or the invention is not disclosed/claimed in the correspondence with the requirements 35 USC 112.
As to claim 13:
Since the disclosed by modified Ikuta method comprises application the light to the solution as claimed, the limitation of claim 13 is inherently met.
As to claims 14-15:
Since the manipulative steps of the method of Ikuta are the same as claimed, the results of the method are the same as claimed or the invention is not disclosed/claimed in correspondence with the requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amended the claims and allege that the claims are allowable.
This is not persuasive for the reasons provided above.
The amended claims have been examined and are the subject of the rejection applied above.
The teaching of Zimmerman et al has been used to show that the pressures as claimed have been known to be used in the cleaning methods utilizing the fluids and the lights used by Ikuta.
As to claims 5 and 6 it is again noted that while Ikuta does not specifically teach of the use of two or more light sources, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected results achieved by the use of multiple light sources.
Further, Ikuta is concerned about uniformity/distribution of the intensity of light (see at least Figures 2 and 5 and the related description).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use multiple light sources in the method of Ikuta in order to ensure proper distribution of the intensity of the light in the method of Ikuta.
As to claim 6:
Providing multiple identical light sources in the method of Ikuta will obviously result in uniform intensity value as claimed, since the use of two identical lamps will meet the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights