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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments directed towards the prior art neither disclosing
nor teaching the incorporated amendment are moot, as the limitation is newly recited,
and Examiner has updated the grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant also argues that “a POSITA would have readily noted that, in Krupa, adjacent pairs of brushes are not spaced apart from each other in a first direction” and “the pairs of brushes…do not engage a single workpiece…”. Examiner has carefully considered but respectfully asserts that Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claimed invention. The claimed invention requires, inter alia, multiple pairs of rotatable brushes, and each pair of rotatable brushes is spaced apart from an adjacent pair of brushes in a first direction. Furthermore, each pair of rotatable brushes is configured to engage a coated panel (…) as claimed. The functional language argued by Applicant is not reflected within the claimed invention.
Examiner has also provided a PTO-892 including Ohmori, as requested by Applicant. Additionally, the 112(b) rejections and claim interpretations have been withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s amendments, please see below for the updated grounds of prior art rejection(s).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 21, please amend the final recitation of “a coated panel” to read “the coated panel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krupa (US 6,678,911).
Regarding claim 1, Krupa discloses an apparatus to remove a coating from a coated panel (see Figures 2 and 5, as well as the Abstract), comprising:
multiple pairs of rotatable brushes, wherein each pair of rotatable brushes is spaced apart from an adjacent pair of rotatable brushes in a first direction (see Reference Drawing 1 regarding first direction D1; see Col. 1, lines 56-64; see modules 12, 14 and assemblies 21, 22; Col. 3, lines 40-49 and 58-65; see also Figures 2 and 5, as well as Col. 6, lines 43-47), wherein each pair of rotatable brushes includes
two opposing brushes with end faces that face each other (see Figure 2; see Col. 3, lines 58-65, Col. 4, lines 34-49; see brushes 21a, 21b and brushes 22a, 22b), and
wherein the two opposing brushes of each pair of rotatable brushes are configured to
(a) rotate about a common axis (Col. 1, lines 60-64),
(b) move towards and away from each other in a second direction transverse to the first direction (Col. 1, lines 60-64; Col. 4, lines 6-25; Col. 6, lines 1-30 in combination with Figures 2 and 5), and
(c) when a coated panel is positioned between the end faces of the two opposing brushes, first portions of the two opposing brushes separably engage with and rotate on opposite surfaces of the coated panel (Col. 2, lines 5-25); and
one or more liquid tanks each configured to contain a liquid (see tanks 28), wherein, when the one or more liquid tanks contain the liquid and when the coated panel is positioned between the end faces of the two opposing brushes, second portions of the two opposing brushes at least contact the liquid in the one or more liquid tanks (See Figure 2 and Col. 2, lines 26-38; see also Figure 3);
wherein each pair of rotatable brushes is configured to engage a coated panel extending in the first direction and positioned between each pair of rotatable brushes (wherein the plane of the workpiece 25 extends in the first direction D1).
PNG
media_image1.png
872
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
Regarding claim 2, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Krupa further discloses wherein a number of the liquid tanks is equal to a number of pairs of rotatable brushes (see Figures 2 and 5; wherein there are two pairs of brushes, and there are two tanks 28).
Regarding claim 3, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Krupa further discloses wherein the first portions are top portions of the two opposing brushes and the second portions are bottom portions of the two opposing brushes (wherein the liquid level of fluid 26 is shown in Figure 3, wherein the top portions of the opposing brushes 21a, 21b and opposing brushes 22a, 22b are in contact with the workpiece and the bottom portions of the brushes are in contact with liquid 26).
Regarding claim 5, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Krupa further discloses wherein the common axis of rotation of each pair of rotatable brushes extend in the second direction (see the rotational axes of the respective pairs of brushes in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Krupa further discloses wherein, when the end faces of the two opposing brushes rotate on opposite surfaces of the coated panel and the one or more liquid tanks contain the liquid, the two opposing brushes are configured to transfer at least a portion of the coating from the coated panel to the liquid in the one or more liquid tanks (see at least Figures 2 and 3, see liquid 26, as well as the debris disclosed in Col. 2, lines 26-38).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupa (US 6,678,911) in view of Saeki (US 2011/0195279).
Regarding claim 4, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Krupa does not explicitly teach wherein each brush of the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes includes a polyolefin foam.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Saeki teaches of material for elements (50a, 50b) acting on opposing sides of a substrate (see [0022] and Figure 5), wherein the material of elements 50a, 50b may include a polyolefin foam ([0099] teaches of polyethylene foam, which is a polyolefin foam). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the material taught by Saeki within the brush elements of Krupa. Krupa intimates alternative brush characteristics, including contemplating materials (see Col. 4, lines 23-25). It is old and well known in the art of substrates to use materials such as polyolefin foams since these materials perform well within the CMP environment, are stable, and resist wear. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.07 establishes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia case of obviousness. This modification thus would have yielded predictable results of operating on a workpiece successfully and there would be reasonable expectations of success.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupa (US 6,678,911) in view of Ohmori (US 5590672).
Regarding claims 6-8, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Krupa does not explicitly teach further including a pair of cold plates spaced apart from each other in the second direction to define a gap therebetween, wherein, when the coated panel is positioned between the two opposing brushes, the coated panel extends through the gap between the pair of cold plates (claim 6), wherein each cold plate of the pair of cold plates are configured to circulate a coolant therethrough (claim 7), wherein the pair of cold plates are positioned above the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes (claim 8).
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Ohmori teaches a pair of cold plates spaced apart from each in the second direction to define a gap therebetween, wherein, when the coated panel is positioned between the two opposing brushes, the coated panel extends through the gap between the pair of cold plates (see Figure 73; wherein opposing plates above and on the sides of the cleaning chamber are configured to allow cool air to flow therethrough, and wherein when combined into the invention of Krupa, the workpiece of Krupa would extends therebetween; see also Col. 35, line 42-Col. 36, line 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Krupa to include cooling structures in each respective modules, as taught by Ohmori. One would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the overall operating temperatures and thus decrease the potential defects of a workpiece (Col. 36, lines 30-34).
Thus, Krupa in view of Ohmori teaches the claimed invention as applied in the combination statement above, and further teaches the subject matter of dependent claims 7 and 8, i.e. wherein each cold plate of the pair of cold plates are configured to circulate a coolant therethrough (Ohmori: see Figure 73, as well as the nozzle 149, Col. 35, lines 46-67) and wherein the pair of cold plates are positioned above the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes (Ohmori: as can be seen in Figure 73, the cold plate portions extend around and above the cleaning chamber).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupa (US 6,678,911) in view of Kamata (US 5,378,281).
Regarding claim 9, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Krupa does not explicitly teach a position-adjustment mechanism configured to move the one or more liquid tanks towards and away from the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes, wherein the position adjustment mechanism comprises one or more of guides, a cam, a shaft, a knob, a fluid level sensor, or a motor.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kamata teaches of a position adjustment mechanism configured to move one or more liquid tanks towards and away, wherein the position adjustment mechanism comprises one or more of guides, a cam, a shaft, a knob, a fluid level sensor, or a motor (wherein there may be provided a drive arrangement such as an air cylinder or electrical actuator for vertically displacing the solution reservoir 26; see Col. 6, line 65-Col. 7, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the independent displaceability of a reservoir, as taught by Kamata, into the invention of Krupa. The ability to actuate elements independently within the context of an apparatus is old and well known in the art, and would be considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. One would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kamata because modifying the tanks (28) of Krupa to be displaceable relative to the brushes would allow for differently sized workpieces to be accommodated therein; for example, viewing Figure 3 of Krupa, a larger diameter workpiece would benefit from being raised relative to the bottom of the tank. Alternatively, a smaller workpiece may not require the entirety of the space taken up by the workpiece shown in Figure 3, and thus would benefit from raising the tank. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. an tank that has an adjustable position, to improve a similar device in the same way and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupa (US 6,678,911) in view of Benvegnu (US 20220270889).
Regarding claim 10, Krupa discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Krupa does not explicitly teach a plurality of air jets positioned above the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes, wherein the plurality of air jets are configured to direct an air stream towards the one or more liquid tanks.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Benvegnu teaches a plurality of air jets positioned above a cleaning module tank (see tank 124, Figures 1A and 3; see drier module 115 comprising nozzles 210; wherein the drier module can be connected to an air source to generate an air jet; see [0032], [0034]), wherein the plurality of air jets are configured to direct an air stream towards the one or more liquid tanks (wherein Figure 3 shows the direction being blown, towards both the substrate and the liquid within the tank).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a drier module including nozzles which may be connected to an air source, as taught by Benvegnu, into the invention of Krupa. One would be motivated to do so in order to dry the workpiece in between and at the conclusion of the operations, removing residual solution for presenting a final product without streaks, spotting, or residues (see Benvegnu: [0031-0034]).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupa (US 6,678,911) in view of Kamata (US 5,378,281) and Benvegnu (US 20220270889).
Regarding claim 21, Krupa discloses an apparatus to remove a coating from a coated panel (see Figures 2 and 5, as well as the Abstract), comprising:
multiple pairs of rotatable brushes spaced apart from each other in a first direction (see Col. 1, lines 56-64; see modules 12, 14 and assemblies 21, 22; Col. 3, lines 40-49 and 58-65; see also Figures 2 and 5, as well as Col. 6, lines 43-47), wherein each pair of rotatable brushes includes
two opposing brushes with end faces that face each other (see Figure 2; see Col. 3, lines 58-65, Col. 4, lines 34-49; see brushes 21a, 21b and brushes 22a, 22b), and
wherein the two opposing brushes of each pair of rotatable brushes are configured to
(a) rotate about a common axis (Col. 1, lines 60-64),
(b) move towards and away from each other in a second direction transverse to the first direction (Col. 1, lines 60-64; Col. 4, lines 6-25; Col. 6, lines 1-30 in combination with Figures 2 and 5), and
(c) when a coated panel is positioned between the end faces of the two opposing brushes, first portions of the two opposing brushes separably engage with and rotate on opposite surfaces of the coated panel (Col. 2, lines 5-25); and
one or more liquid tanks each configured to contain a liquid (see tanks 28), wherein, when the one or more liquid tanks contain the liquid and when the coated panel is positioned between the end faces of the two opposing brushes, second portions of the two opposing brushes at least contact the liquid in the one or more liquid tanks (See Figure 2 and Col. 2, lines 26-38; see also Figure 3),
wherein each pair of rotatable brushes is configured to engage a coated panel extending in the first direction and positioned between each pair of rotatable brushes (wherein the plane of the workpiece 25 extends in the first direction D1).
However, Krupa does not explicitly teach a position-adjustment mechanism configured to move the one or more liquid tanks towards and away from the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes, wherein the position adjustment mechanism comprises one or more of guides, a cam, a shaft, a knob, a fluid level sensor, or a motor; and a plurality of air jets positioned above the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes and configured to direct an air stream towards the one or more liquid tanks.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kamata teaches of a position adjustment mechanism configured to move one or more liquid tanks towards and away, wherein the position adjustment mechanism comprises one or more of guides, a cam, a shaft, a knob, a fluid level sensor, or a motor (wherein there may be provided a drive arrangement such as an air cylinder or electrical actuator for vertically displacing the solution reservoir 26; see Col. 6, line 65-Col. 7, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the independent displaceability of a reservoir, as taught by Kamata, into the invention of Krupa. The ability to actuate elements independently within the context of an apparatus is old and well known in the art, and would be considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. One would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kamata because modifying the tanks (28) of Krupa to be displaceable relative to the brushes would allow for differently sized workpieces to be accommodated therein; for example, viewing Figure 3 of Krupa, a larger diameter workpiece would benefit from being raised relative to the bottom of the tank. Alternatively, a smaller workpiece may not require the entirety of the space taken up by the workpiece shown in Figure 3, and thus would benefit from raising the tank. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. an tank that has an adjustable position, to improve a similar device in the same way and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Benvegnu teaches a plurality of air jets positioned above a cleaning module tank (see tank 124, Figures 1A and 3; see drier module 115 comprising nozzles 210; wherein the drier module can be connected to an air source to generate an air jet; see [0032], [0034]), and configured to direct an air stream towards the one or more liquid tanks (wherein Figure 3 shows the direction being blown, towards both the substrate and the liquid within the tank).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a drier module including nozzles which may be connected to an air source, as taught by Benvegnu, into the invention of Krupa. One would be motivated to do so in order to dry the workpiece in between and at the conclusion of the operations, removing residual solution for presenting a final product without streaks, spotting, or residues (see Benvegnu: [0031-0034]).
Regarding claim 23, Krupa as modified by Kamata and Benvegnu teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Krupa further teaches wherein the common axis of rotation of each pair of rotatable brushes extend in the second direction (see the rotational axes of the respective pairs of brushes in Figure 2).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupa (US 6,678,911) in view of Kamata (US 5,378,281) and Benvegnu (US 20220270889), and in further view of Saeki (US 0195279).
Regarding claim 22, Krupa as modified by Kamata and Benvegnu teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Krupa does not explicitly teach wherein each brush of the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes includes a polyolefin foam.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Saeki teaches of material for elements (50a, 50b) acting on opposing sides of a substrate (see [0022] and Figure 5), wherein the material of elements 50a, 50b may include a polyolefin foam ([0099] teaches of polyethylene foam, which is a polyolefin foam). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the material taught by Saeki within the brush elements of Krupa. Krupa intimates alternative brush characteristics, including contemplating materials (see Col. 4, lines 23-25). It is old and well known in the art of substrates to use materials such as polyolefin foams since these materials perform well within the CMP environment, are stable, and resist wear. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.07 establishes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia case of obviousness. This modification thus would have yielded predictable results of operating on a workpiece successfully and there would be reasonable expectations of success.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupa (US 6,678,911) in view of Kamata (US 5,378,281) and Benvegnu (US 20220270889), and in further view of Ohmori (US 5,590,672).
Regarding claims 24-26, Krupa as modified by Kamata and Benvegnu teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Krupa does not explicitly teach further including a pair of cold plates spaced apart from each other in the second direction to define a gap therebetween, wherein, when the coated panel is positioned between the two opposing brushes, the coated panel extends through the gap between the pair of cold plates (claim 24), wherein each cold plate of the pair of cold plates are configured to circulate a coolant therethrough (claim 25), wherein the pair of cold plates are positioned above the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes (claim 26).
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Ohmori teaches a pair of cold plates spaced apart from each in the second direction to define a gap therebetween, wherein, when the coated panel is positioned between the two opposing brushes, the coated panel extends through the gap between the pair of cold plates (see Figure 73; wherein opposing plates above and on the sides of the cleaning chamber are configured to allow cool air to flow therethrough, and wherein when combined into the invention of Krupa, the workpiece of Krupa would extends therebetween; see also Col. 35, line 42-Col. 36, line 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Krupa to include cooling structures in each respective modules, as taught by Ohmori. One would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the overall operating temperatures and thus decrease the potential defects of a workpiece (Col. 36, lines 30-34).
Thus, Krupa in view of Ohmori teaches the claimed invention as applied in the combination statement above, and further teaches the subject matter of dependent claims 25 and 26, i.e. wherein each cold plate of the pair of cold plates are configured to circulate a coolant therethrough (Ohmori: see Figure 73, as well as the nozzle 149, Col. 35, lines 46-67) and wherein the pair of cold plates are positioned above the multiple pairs of rotatable brushes (Ohmori: as can be seen in Figure 73, the cold plate portions extend around and above the cleaning chamber).
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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723