The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received March 13, 2026 amending Claims 14, 15, 22, and 24.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “apparatus” in Claims 14-22, “adhesive layer removal mechanism” in Claims 14, 15, 18, 24, and 25, “pick up device” in Claims 14 and 24, “waste removal mechanism” in Claims 18, 19, and 25, and “contact cleaning apparatus” in Claims 23 and 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
As necessitated by amendment, Claims 14, 15, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii JP 2016203089 A (hereafter Fujii) in view of multiple embodiments.
Regarding Amended Claim 14, Fujii teaches:
14. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for automatically removing an exhausted layer of adhesive material from an adhesive roll (removal device 10), the apparatus comprising:
an adhesive roll (adhesive tape roll 630) comprising at least one layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b), the at least one adhesive layer having first and second mutually opposing faces, the second face releasably attached to the adhesive roll and having a first adhesion force between the second face and [[an]]the adhesive roll; and
an adhesive layer removal mechanism (mechanism that moves rubber roller into and out of contact with adhesive tape 630a) comprising a pick up device (rubber roller), wherein the pick up device is a roller (roller) having an outer surface (rubber outer surface), wherein the adhesive layer removal mechanism configured to contact the outer surface to the at least one layer of adhesive material of the adhesive roll and remove the at least one layer of adhesive material from the adhesive roll, the outer surface having a second adhesion force between the outer surface and the at least one layer of adhesive material (“In this case, since the adhesive force of the rubber roller is stronger than the adhesive force of the adhesive surface 630b, the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer can be easily formed by bringing the rubber roller into contact with the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer in a linear or planar manner. Can be peeled off”),
wherein the second adhesion force is greater than the first adhesion force (“In this case, since the adhesive force of the rubber roller is stronger than the adhesive force of the adhesive surface 630b, the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer can be easily formed by bringing the rubber roller into contact with the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer in a linear or planar manner. Can be peeled off”).
Fujii teaches multiple embodiments of his device including the cited embodiment that employs a pick up device that includes a rubber roller to remove a layer of adhesive tape after it is spent. Unfortunately, he does not provide a figure of the complete assembly for the rubber roller embodiment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple embodiments taught by Fujii to create a viable device that employs the rubber roller to remove a layer of adhesive 630a from an adhesive roll 630 that is used to clean wafer cleaning lower adhesive roll body 53 and dispose of the spent layer of adhesive 630a into dust box 122 with the motivation to create an operational device that employs a rubber roller rather than the other disclosed techniques. The remaining rejection cites the features of this obvious device combination.
Regarding Amended Claim 15, Fujii teaches:
15. (Currently Amended ) The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the adhesive layer removal mechanism is configured to be moveable between a first configuration, in which the outer surface of the adhesive layer removal mechanism contacts the adhesive roll (“bringing the rubber roller into contact with the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer in a linear or planar manner. Can be peeled off”), and a second configuration, in which the adhesive layer removal mechanism is disengaged from the adhesive roll (not in contact with the adhesive tape 630a).
Regarding Claim 18, Fujii teaches:
18. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising a waste removal mechanism (peeling mechanism 120 with dust box 122) arranged to operably engage the at least one layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) on the adhesive layer removal mechanism (mechanism that moves rubber roller into and out of contact with adhesive tape 630a) and remove the same from the adhesive sheet removal mechanism.
Regarding Claim 19, Fujii teaches:
19. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the waste removal mechanism (peeling mechanism 120 with dust box 122) comprises one or more of: a rewind roller (chucking means 121 which is roller shaped as shown in Figure 14) and a tangential blade (Figure 10 discloses layer peeling using a claw member 111 which is a tangential blade).
Regarding Claim 20, Fujii teaches:
20. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the at least one layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) comprises a continuous adhesive sheet (tape with adhesive)(see discussion below).
Fujii discloses an adhesive tape roll 630 comprising a plurality of individual outer tape sheets as shown by the cut in Figures 6a and 6b that are removed after it is determined that they are spent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to set the length of the sheet to match the circumference of the tape roll 630. As the tape roll is consumed, it would have been obvious that the radius of the roll, and therefore the circumference, will slowly change. It would therefore be obvious that the sheet length will eventually exceed the circumference leading to an overlap of unused space on the adhesive sheet. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scored or perforated pattern on a continuous roll that result in a tear at a desired location or employ a cutting blade that is configured to cut the tape roll prior to, or after removal allowing it better remove a single circumference worth of the roll with the motivation to increase the life of the roll 630.
Regarding Claim 21, Fujii teaches:
21. (Previously Presented) The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the at least one layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) comprises a plurality of adhesive sheets operably coupled to one another at adjoining ends thereof (Figures 6a and 6b show a plurality of adhesive sheets with the length equal to the circumference).
Regarding Amended Claim 22, Fujii teaches:
22. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein [[the]] a first face of at least one layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) of the adhesive roll (adhesive tape roll 630) is configured to contact at least one cleaning roller (lower adhesive roll body 53) so as to remove debris from the first face (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 23, Fujii teaches:
23. (Previously Presented) A contact cleaning apparatus (wafer cleaning, Figure 5) comprising one or more contact cleaning rollers (lower adhesive roll body 53), one or more adhesive rolls (adhesive tape roll 630) configured and arranged to remove debris from the one or more contact cleaning rollers (Figure 5) and the apparatus according to claim 1 for automatically removing (with rubber roller as disclosed in Claim 1) an exhausted layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) from the adhesive roll(s).
Regarding Amended Claim 24, Fujii teaches:
24. (Currently Amended) A method for automatically removing (with removal device 10) an exhausted layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) from an adhesive roll (adhesive tape roll 630), the method comprising:
providing an adhesive roll (adhesive tape roll 630);
providing an adhesive layer removal mechanism (mechanism that moves rubber roller into and out of contact with adhesive tape 630a) comprising a pick up device (rubber roller), wherein the pick up device is a roller (roller);
contacting the adhesive layer removal mechanism with the at least one layer of adhesive material of the adhesive roll (“bringing the rubber roller into contact with the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer in a linear or planar manner. Can be peeled off”); and
removing, by the adhesive layer removal mechanism, the operably engaged at least one layer of adhesive material from the adhesive roll, thereby exposing a clean layer of adhesive material on the adhesive roll (“In this case, since the adhesive force of the rubber roller is stronger than the adhesive force of the adhesive surface 630b, the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer can be easily formed by bringing the rubber roller into contact with the adhesive tape 630a on the surface layer in a linear or planar manner. Can be peeled off”).
Regarding Claim 25, Fujii teaches:
25. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 24, wherein the method further comprises the step of providing a waste removal mechanism (peeling mechanism 120 with dust box 122) and the step of removing, by the waste removal mechanism, the operably engaged at least one layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) from the adhesive layer removal mechanism (mechanism that moves rubber roller into and out of contact with adhesive tape 630a)(discarding removed layer into dust box 122 as shown in Figure 14).
Regarding Claim 26, Fujii teaches:
26. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 24, wherein the method further comprises:
providing a contact cleaning apparatus (wafer cleaning, Figure 5) comprising one or more contact cleaning rollers (lower adhesive roll body 53); and
operably engaging (with rubber roller) the at least one layer of adhesive material (adhesive tape 630a with adhesive surface 630b) of the adhesive roll (adhesive tape roll 630) with the one or more contact cleaning rollers so as to remove debris therefrom (Figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the examiner withdraws the previous Claim Objections.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found the antecedent basis amendments satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous antecedent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed March 13, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 14, 15, 17-26 under Corrado WO 2006/133024, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, as necessitated by amendment, the rejections under Corrado have been withdrawn.
As necessitated by amendment, new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 14, 15, and 18-26 have been made under Fujii JP 2016203089 A.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot since they do not apply to the rejections under the Fujii reference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723