DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 11/11/2025.
2. Claims 1-16 and 24-27 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-16 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatoh et al. (US 20210039142, “Takatoh”) in view of Tanaka (US 20150099433), Kurashima et al. (US 20110192420, “Kurashima”) and Wei et al. (US 20190006204 A1).
Takatoh teaches a substrate cleaning apparatus comprising the following of claim 1 except where underlined:
For Claim 1:
A substrate cleaning device, comprising:
a substrate cleaning module including a first roll member disposed adjacent to a lower surface of a substrate, a first driver assembly configured to move the first roll member in vertical and horizontal directions with respect to the lower surface of the substrate, a second roll member disposed adjacent to an upper surface of the substrate, and a second driver assembly configured to move the second roll member in vertical and horizontal directions with respect to the upper surface of the substrate (see Figure 3, roll members 11b, rotation mechanism 31, holding mechanism 32. refer to arrows indicating movement. [0048]). Examiner considers the flange/extension of rotation mechanism 31 appears to be some form of arm. If Takatoh’s holding mechanism rotation mechanism 31 and holding mechanism 32 are challenged as satisfying a driver assembly with regards to the arm regarding the flange/extension of rotation mechanism 31, Examiner notes Tanaka below;
a first roll cleaning module including a processing tank including a roll receiving region having the first roll member accommodated therein, a first cleaning solution supplier configured to supply a first cleaning solution to the roll receiving region, and an ultrasonic generator configured to apply ultrasonic vibrations to the first cleaning solution supplied to the roll receiving region (see Figure 5, bath 62, transport mechanism 65, vibration module 67, jetting module 68. [0052]-[0054]). Either transport mechanism 65 and/or jetting module 68 would appear to read on the first cleaning solution supplier;
a second roll cleaning module including a housing having the second roll member accommodated therein, a brush pad disposed in the housing and on which the second roll member is seated, and a second cleaning solution supplier configured to supply a second cleaning solution to the brush pad on which the second roll member is seated (see Takatoh’s Figure 5, self-cleaning member 60, transport mechanism 65, jetting module 68. [0052]-[0054]). Takatoh teaches a self-cleaning member 60 for contact cleaning. Either transport mechanism 65 and/or jetting module 68 would appear to read on the second cleaning solution supplier; and
a control unit configured to control the first driver assembly so that the first roll member is in contact with the lower surface of the substrate or is accommodated in the roll receiving region of the processing tank, and to control the second driver assembly so that the second roll member is in contact with the upper surface of the substrate or is seated on the brush pad in the housing (see Figures 1, 3, 5, controller 50. [0041]). The controller 50 controls movement of the modules. Examiner considers one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the movement of roll member 11b into bath 62 to be carried out under instruction by the controller 50.
wherein the substrate cleaning module further comprises a first roll holder configured to rotate the first roll member (see Takatoh’s Figure 3, rotation mechanism 31. [0046]; Examiner considers the portion of rotation mechanism adjacent roll member 11b (e.g. non-flange/arm portion) as the first roll holder.)
wherein when the first roll member is accommodated in the roll receiving region and the first roll holder rotates the first roll member, the ultrasonic generator applies the ultrasonic vibrations to the first cleaning solution in the roll receiving region to thereby clean the first roll member (¶ [0052] vibration module 67 gives ultrasound vibration in the bath 62 at the time of self-cleaning of the cleaning tool 11).
It may be argued whether Takatoh’s rotation mechanism 31 and holding mechanism 32 read on the driver assembly with regards to the arm. Takatoh does not appear to teach a second driver assembly or second bath. Takatoh teaches a self-cleaning member 60 for contact cleaning but not a brush pad per se. Takatoh further does not explicitly teach the negative limitation cleaning “without contact with a rubbing member”. Takatoh appearing to contain in each embodiment a self-cleaning member 60, however, Takatoh also further teaches that “components described in the claims and the specification can be arbitrarily combined or omitted” (¶ [0074]).
Regarding the driver assembly if Takatoh’s rotation mechanism 31 and holding mechanism 32 are challenged (e.g. Takatoh’s rotation mechanism 31’s flange/extension is not considered to fairly satisfy the arm of the 112(f) interpretation), Examiner further cites Tanaka as teaching another roll cleaning member support (see Tanaka’s Figures 2-3, roll arm 42, roll cleaning member 46, air cylinder 56, vertically-movable shaft 57, support arm 58). Using Tanaka’s roll cleaning member support arrangement instead constitutes a simple substitution (see MPEP 2143, "(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”). Tanaka further discloses a first roll holder (See Tanaka’s Figures 2-3, upper roll arm 42. [0038]).
Regarding “without contact with a rubber member”, Examiner cites Wei for explicitly teaching that a vibrator (ref. 19, see e.g. fig. 5) may be used independently of a rubbing member (ref. 17B) (¶ [0043] heater 18A, the vibrator 19, and the protruding structure 17B may be used independently or together, according to the actual requirements and the operation conditions.
Here, the omission of protruding/rubbing/contact-based-self-cleaning members would have been prima facie obvious, if contact cleaning was not desired, e.g. to prevent wear or ultrasonic cleaning is sufficient, to reduce components. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) Omission of an Element. This further supported by Takatoh’s explicit disclosure of arbitrarily omitting components (¶ [0074]).
Regarding the use of a second driver assembly and second roll cleaning module, Examiner considers this to be an obvious duplication of parts and/or making separable (see MPEP 2144.04, “Duplication of Parts”, “Making Separable”). Using distinct cleaning/conditioning devices for upper and lower rollers, brushes, etc. and allowing said upper and lower rollers to move separately are well-known and refers to Kurashima (see Kurashima’s Figures 3a-3b, roll member 21, brush-cleaning members 27. Refer to different trajectories towards the brush-cleaning members 27). Modifying Takatoh to use a distinct holding mechanism 32 and bath 62 for each roll member 11b rather than sharing them between both roll members 11b would yield a predictable variation thereof.
Regarding the brush pad, Takatoh already teaches a contact element in cleaning member 60 for mechanical agitation/cleaning (see Takatoh’s Figure 5, self-cleaning member 60. [0052]-[0054]). Examiner considers use of brushes as conventional in the art and refers again to Kurashima (see Kurashima’s Figures 3a-3b, brush-cleaning members 27, base portion 28, brush portion 29). Using a brush pad in place of self-cleaning member 60 appears to constitute a simple substitution of contact elements for cleaning (see MPEP 2143, "(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”).
Modified Takatoh also teaches the following:
For Claim 2:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the substrate cleaning module further comprises a first roll holder configured to rotate the first roll member and a second roll holder configured to rotate the second roll member (see Takatoh’s Figure 3, rotation mechanism 31. [0046]. See Tanaka’s Figures 2-3, upper roll arm 42. [0038]). Examiner considers the portion of rotation mechanism adjacent roll member 11b (e.g. non-flange/arm portion) as the first roll holder. If challenged, Tanaka teaches a roll arm which rotatably supports the roll cleaning members when driven by an unshown driving mechanism.
For Claim 3:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 2,
wherein a first rotation shaft of the first roll member is parallel to the lower surface of the substrate (see Takatoh’s Figure 3, roll member 11b. refer to rotation shaft. [0046]). Examiner notes that the substrate is an object-to-be-worked upon/intended application, and
wherein a second rotation shaft of the second roll member is parallel to the upper surface of the substrate (see Takatoh’s Figure 3, roll member 11b. refer to rotation shaft. [0046]). Examiner notes that the substrate is an object-to-be-worked upon/intended application.
Modified Takatoh does not teach the following:
For Claim 4:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1,
wherein the first roll member has a cylindrical shape having first protrusions on an outer circumferential surface thereof, and
wherein the second roll member has a cylindrical shape having second protrusions on an outer circumferential surface thereof.
Examiner however, considers it conventional in the art for roll members to include protrusions and refers again to Kurashima (see Kurashima’s Figures 3a-3b, roll member 21, sponge portion 23. [0032]). Using roll members with protrusions would constitute a simple substitution/predictable variant of Takatoh’s roll members 11b (see MPEP 2143, "(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”).
For Claim 6:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second roll members extend to be parallel to the lower surface and the upper surface of the substrate, respectively, and have a length greater than a diameter of the substrate (see MPEP 2115, MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS). The substrate is an object-to-be-worked upon/intended application, such that the diameter can be hypothetical/variable depending on the substrate being treated.
For Claim 7:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the first and second driver assemblies each comprise at least one robot arm and at least one driver transmitting driving force to the at least one robot arm, respectively (refer to claim 1 rejection. see Takatoh’s Figure 3, rotation mechanism 31, holding mechanism 32. see Tanaka’s Figures 2-3, air cylinder 56, vertically-movable shaft 57, support arm 58).
For Claim 8:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1,
wherein the ultrasonic generator applies the ultrasonic vibrations by generating ultrasonic waves (see Takatoh’s [0052]), and
wherein the ultrasonic waves have a frequency in a range of about 700 kHz to about 1.5 MHz (see MPEP 2144.05, “Routine Optimization”). Examiner takes Official Notice it is well-known in the cleaning arts to tamper/vary frequency of ultrasonic devices for a desired cleaning/agitation effect (see MPEP 2144.03, Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or "Well Known" Prior Art).
Further, the selection of specific ultrasonic frequencies is a prima facie optimization within known prior art conditions and readily obtainable through routine experimentation, i.e. frequency affects cleaning depending on the type and size of contaminants, where it is explicitly known to vary said frequency as taught by Kurashima (Claim 17 vibration by ultrasonic; see also ¶ [0035] Further…vibration smaller than ultrasonic wave) and Wei (¶ [0041] high-frequency vibrator, a megasonic vibrator, or the like). See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization. Here, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality of range that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art testing for optimized cleaning frequencies.
For Claim 9:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the processing tank further includes an overflow region adjacent to the roll receiving region (see Takatoh’s Figure 5, refer to region around transport mechanism 65).
For Claim 10:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 9, wherein the first roll cleaning module further includes a cleaning solution circulation unit configured to supply at least a portion of the first cleaning solution flowing into the overflow region to the roll receiving region (see [0052]). Transport mechanism 65 is taught as circulating the internal liquid.
For Claim 12:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the first roll cleaning module further includes a rinsing solution supplier configured to supply a rinsing solution into the roll receiving region (see Takatoh’s Figure 5, jetting module 68).
For Claim 13:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 12, wherein the rinsing solution comprises pure water or ultrapure water (see Takatoh’s [0052]).
For Claim 14:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the first and second cleaning solutions comprise at least one of pure water, ultrapure water, hydrofluoric acid (HF), sulfuric acid (H3SO4), nitric acid (HNO3), phosphoric acid (H3PO4), a standard clean-1 (SC-1) solution, an EKC solution, a LAL solution, and a diluted sulfate peroxide (DSP) solution (see Takatoh’s Figure 3, liquid 64. [0052]).
For Claim 15:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1,
wherein the substrate cleaning module further includes a spindle disposed adjacent to an edge of the substrate (see Takatoh’s Figure 3, support member 40. [0045]) , and
wherein the spindle is configured to horizontally rotate the substrate (see Takatoh’s [0045]).
For Claim 16:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the substrate cleaning module further includes a cleaning solution supply nozzle configured to supply a third cleaning solution to the lower surface or the upper surface of the substrate (see Takatoh’s Figure 3, supply modules 42. [0044]).
Re Claims 24-27, Claims 24-27 read as subcombinations and combinations of limitations rejected above and are therefore considered satisfied by the combination of Takatoh, Tanaka, Kurashima and Wei. There being no patentable subject matter in the specific selection of known and/or obvious features and no criticality or non-obvious result arising from the combination being apparent.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatoh et al. (US 20210039142, “Takatoh”) in view of Tanaka (US 20150099433) and Kurashima et al. (US 20110192420, “Kurashima”) and Wei et al. (UIS 20190006204A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 20160254170, “Hu”).
Modified Takatoh teaches claim 1.
Modified Takatoh does not teach the following:
For Claim 11:
The substrate cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the first roll cleaning module further includes a discharge assembly configured to discharge the first cleaning solution in the roll receiving region.
Examiner however, considers discharge lines as well-known in the art and refers to Hu, who teaches using a liquid outlet unit to remove contaminated liquid (see Hu Figures 6a-6b, cleaning fluid 8, container 41, liquid outlet unit 43. [0023]-[0024]) (see MPEP 2143, “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part with respect to “without contact with a rubbing member”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wei et al. (US 2019/0006204 A1), specifically teaching that a vibrator may be used independently [or together] of a protruding/rubbing structure.
Examiner further notes the omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Here, e.g., the omission of protruding/rubbing/contact-based-self-cleaning members would have been prima facie obvious if contact cleaning was not desired, e.g. to prevent wear, or ultrasonic cleaning alone is sufficient, to reduce components. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) Omission of an Element.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Official Notice and Claim 8. Examiner highlights the prior art cited in the conclusion as evidence of the state of the art or knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at or prior to the time of filing of the invention, including but not limited to a range of frequencies from 0.6 Mhz to about 2 MHz that aligns closely and overlaps with the claimed range. Further, the selection of specific ultrasonic frequencies is a prima facie optimization within known prior art conditions and readily obtainable through routine experimentation, i.e. frequency affects cleaning depending on the type and size of contaminants, where it is explicitly known to vary said frequency as taught by Kurashima (Claim 17 vibration by ultrasonic; see also ¶ [0035] Further…vibration smaller than ultrasonic wave) and Wei (¶ [0041] high-frequency vibrator, a megasonic vibrator, or the like). See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization. Here, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality of range that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art testing for optimized cleaning frequencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190099787A1 note contactless sonic cleaning of wafer brush (fig. 3) and vibration across a range of frequencies from 0.6 MHz to about 2 MHz (¶ [0033]).
US20200281347A1 note contactless ultrasonic cleaning of roller (fig. 2) and ultrasonic frequency from low to high affecting removal efficiency (¶ [0087]).
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights