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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 29, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s identification of the reference numeral to the Drawings and amendment/cancellation of the Claims have overcome each and every objection.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Correction Means” in claims 18 - 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim (s) 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “Correction Means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. However, the specification was reviewed and this disclosure does not define any corresponding structure as in [0055], the disclosure simply recites the limitations of the claims. For examination purposes regarding “correction means” any structure in the prior art that meets the claimed function will be presumed to meet the claimed limitation, as best understood. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 8, 11 - 16 and 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishijima et al (US 20220258217 A1).
In re claim 1. Nishijima et al et al discloses a substrate cleaning apparatus (Fig. 2: 31) comprising:
a substrate support unit (rotation mechanism, 80) that rotates and holds a substrate (hold and rotate the substrate, see [0045]);
a brush unit (combination of raising/lowering device, Fig. 4: 70; holder, 60; and roll cleaning member, 81) for cleaning the substrate with at least one cleaning brush formed in a roll and rotating in contact with the surface of the substrate (cleaning member, 81 to contact the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate, see [0046]);
a vibration sensor (sensor, 72, to measure information concerning a vibration, see [0061]) installed on the brush unit to detect vibrations generated by contact of the cleaning brush with the substrate (shown between raising/lowering device, 70 and holder, see Fig. 4) during a cleaning process in a state where the cleaning brush is in contact with the substrate rotated by the substrate support unit, before the cleaning process is completed (sensor, 72 measures a vibration of the roll cleaning member, 81 during rotation, see [0061]);
a control unit (Fig. 3: 50) for comparing a measured value by the vibration sensor with a set value stored in memory (sensor, 72 measures an amplitude of the load, when the amplitude of the load is equal to or less than a certain prescribed value, see [0066]),, and detecting an error in the contact state of the substrate and the cleaning brush if the measured value falls below the set value (an abnormality determination program that determines, based on a measurement result of the sensor, 72, whether there is an abnormality in the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60, based on the amplitude of the load not being within the predetermined prescribed value, see [0072]).
In re claim 4. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the measured value and the set value are amplitude values at a rotational frequency of the cleaning brush (an amplitude of the roll cleaning member, 81 during rotation and determines abnormality of the roll cleaning member, 81 during rotation of a predetermined prescribed value, see [0075]).
In re claim 8. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the vibration sensor measures a magnitude of the z-axis amplitude in the vertical direction as the measured value (sensor, 72 measuring load on a line L2 orthogonal to the rotation axis, L1, see Fig. 4), and
the control unit detects a posture error of the cleaning brush and the substrate from the magnitude of the z-axis amplitude in the vertical direction (control device, 50 includes an abnormality determination program that determines, based on a measurement result of the sensor, 72, whether there is an abnormality in the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60, see [0062]).
In re claim 11. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the vibration sensor is an acceleration sensor (alternatively, the sensor, 72 is not limited to the load cell as long as the sensor, 72 measures information concerning a vibration of the roll cleaning member, 81 during rotation, and may be an acceleration sensor, see [0061]).
In re claim 12. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the control unit outputs an alarm when a contact state of the substrate and the cleaning brush is detected as an error based on the measured value falling below the set value (when the amplitude of the load is not within the predetermined prescribed value (when step Fig. 9: S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the worker is notified, see [0072]).
In re claim 13. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the control unit stops cleaning of the substrate by the cleaning brush when a contact state of the substrate with the cleaning brushes is detected as erroneous based on the measured value falling below the set value (when step Fig. 9: S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the device is stopped, see [0072]).
In re claim 14. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the substrate support (rotation mechanism, 80) unit includes:
at least two first supports (plurality of holding roller, 80a) of supporting an edge of the substrate (hold an outer periphery of the substrate, see [0045]), and;
at least one second support (plurality of holding rollers, 80a) of supporting an edge of the substrate (hold an outer periphery of the substrate, see [0045]) and of being movable in a horizontal direction with respect to the first supports (connected to an electric drive part such as a motor or the like and horizontally rotate, see [0045]);
wherein the substrate is supported in a horizontal state by the first supports and the second support and is rotated by a rotation of the first support (substate is held by the periphery of the plurality of holding rollers, 80a and rotate, see [0045]).
In re claim 15. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 14,
wherein the control unit varies the posture of the substrate by retracting and advancing at least one of the first support and the second support (the plurality of holding rollers, 80a are configured to be capable of being moved up and down by an air drive part such as an air cylinder or the like, see [0045]), when the measured value falls below the set value and the contact state of the substate with the cleaning brush is detected as erroneous (the predetermined prescribed value (when step S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the device is stopped and would therefore vary the position from moving up and down to a stopped position, see [0072]).
In re claim 16. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
wherein, when the measured value by the vibration sensor in vertical direction falls below the set value, the control unit detects that the substrate has a poor posture in that a portion of the cleaning brush is not in contact with the substrate (control device, 50 includes an abnormality determination program that determines, based on a measurement result of the sensor, 72, whether there is an abnormality in the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60, based on the amplitude of the load not being within the predetermined prescribed value, see [0072] and is not in contact with an object, see [0080]).
In re claim 18. Nishijima et al et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
further comprising: a correction means for correcting the posture of the substrate when a magnitude of the vibration amplitude measured by the vibration sensor falls below a predetermined value (when step S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the worker is notified, and the device is stopped, see [0072]; therefore the worker is capable of correcting the posture of the substrate),
wherein the correction means initializes the posture of the substrate (when step S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the worker is notified, and the device is stopped, see [0072]; therefore the worker is capable of initializing the posture of the substrate).
In re claim 19. Nishijima et al et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1,
further comprising: a correction means for correcting the posture of the substrate when a magnitude of the vibration amplitude measured by the vibration sensor falls below a predetermined value (when step S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the worker is notified, and the device is stopped, see [0072]; therefore the worker is capable of correcting the posture of the substrate),
wherein the correction means changes the posture of the substrate by moving backward and then forward at least a portion of supports supporting the substrate (when step S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the worker is notified, and the device is stopped, see [0072]; therefore the worker is capable of correcting the posture of the substrate by moving backward and then forward of adjusting supports).
In re claim 20. Nishijima et al et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 17,
further comprising: a correction means for correcting the posture of the substrate when a magnitude of the vibration amplitude measured by the vibration sensor falls below a predetermined value (when step S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the worker is notified, and the device is stopped, see [0072]; therefore the worker is capable of correcting the posture of the substrate),
wherein the correction means corrects the posture of the substrate in a feedback manner that gradually changes the degree of correction according to the amplitude measured by the vibration sensor after each correction (when step S16 is “NO”), it is determined that the roll cleaning member, 81 attached to the holder, 60 is abnormal (step S18), the worker is notified, and the device is stopped, see [0072]; therefore the worker is capable of correcting the posture of the substrate by feedback of the sensor, 72, that measures information concerning a vibration, see [0061]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al (US 20220258217 A1).
In re claim 3. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the set value is obtained through a plurality of cleaning processes that result in the cleaning of the substrate by the cleaning brushes (the abnormity determination program is stored in the control device, 50, see [0085]).
Nishijima et al does not explicitly teach obtaining the set value from experimental values. However, Nishijima et al discloses that the set values need to be optimized to “determine, based on measurement result of sensors whether there is an abnormality, see [0013], notify the worker is notified, and stop the device, see [0072]”. As seen in Fig. 9, S16, the values are followed in determining the amplitude is within or not within the prescribed value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Nishijima et al by obtaining the set value from experimental values, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al (US 20220258217 A1) in view of Hombo et al (US 20150338328 A1).
In re claim 5. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1, having a measured value for a certain time period, (see step 15, in Fig. 9).
Nishijima et al does not disclose,
wherein the measured value is obtained during a time period of at least one second of the cleaning time.
However, Hombo et al teaches substrate cleaning apparatus and method executed in the same, wherein the measured value is obtained during a time period of at least one second of the cleaning time (displacement (mm) vs cleaning time (sec), see Fig. 6).
Accordingly, the prior art reference teaches that it is known that obtaining a measured value is obtained over a certain period of time, as stated above. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have a cleaning time of at least one second as it is known that with any type of cleaning the cleaning time is instantaneous as cleaning starts as soon as the machine/apparatus starts.
Claim(s) 6 - 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al (US 20220258217 A1) in view of Hombo et al (US 20150338328 A1) and in further view of Adams, III (US 9523976 B1).
In re claim 6. Nishijima et al as modified teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 5, having the measured value of load data for a certain time period, see [0071].
Nishijima et al as modified is silent about,
wherein the measured value is a sum of values measured during a time period of at least one second of the cleaning time.
However, Adams, III teaches method and system for processing a semiconductor wafer using data, wherein the measured value is a sum of values measured (wherein the access to the database comprises a query of the database and a comparison of a sum of records associated, as these records associated with previously-stored data to a threshold wherein the comparison excludes one or more records having a value of a stored process parameter outside of an expected range, and wherein the expected range is based on at least one of a deviation relative to a mean, a deviation relative to a median, see Claim 13).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Nishijima et al. with the teachings of wherein the measured value is a sum of values measured during a time period of at least one second of the cleaning time as taught by Adams, III because it simplifies the process of analyzing the data in determining trends and patterns used to perform various tasks such as error determining and correction.
Lastly, Hombo et al teaches substrate cleaning apparatus and method executed in the same, during a time period of at least one second of the cleaning time (displacement (mm) vs cleaning time (sec), see Fig. 6).
Accordingly, the prior art reference teaches that it is known that obtaining a measured value is obtained over a certain period of time, as stated above. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have a cleaning time of at least one second as it is known that with any type of cleaning the cleaning time is instantaneous as cleaning starts as soon as the machine/apparatus starts.
In re claim 7. Nishijima et al as modified teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 5, having a measured value for a certain time period, (see step 13 and step 14, in Fig. 9).
Nishijima et al as modified is silent about, wherein the measured value is a filtered value of a portion of the value measured for a time period of at least one second during the cleaning time.
However, Adams, III teaches method and system for processing a semiconductor wafer using data, wherein the measured value is a filtered value of a portion of the value measured (controller can filter the data, identifying values that are outside of an expected range, see Col. 4: lines 60 – 65).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Nishijima et al. with the teachings of wherein the measured value is a filtered value of a portion of the value measured for a time period of at least one second during the cleaning time as taught by Adams, III because efficient data filtering optimizes the use of data sources, leading to improved productivity in data-related tasks and ultimately resulting in cost savings
Lastly, Hombo et al teaches substrate cleaning apparatus and method executed in the same, for a time period of at least one second during the cleaning time (displacement (mm) vs cleaning time (sec), see Fig. 6).
Accordingly, the prior art reference teaches that it is known that obtaining a measured value is obtained over a certain period of time, as stated above. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have a cleaning time of at least one second as it is known that with any type of cleaning the cleaning time is instantaneous as cleaning starts as soon as the machine/apparatus starts.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al (US 20220258217 A1) in view of Park (KR 101775126 B1).
In re claim 9. Nishijima et al discloses the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 1, having a vibration sensor measures a magnitude of the z-axis amplitude in the vertical direction (sensor, 72 measuring in line L2, see [0061]).
Nishijima et al is silent about,
wherein the vibration sensor is a three-axis vibration sensor that measures a magnitude of the x-axis and y-axis amplitude in the horizontal direction.
However, Park teaches a multichannel diagnostic apparatus, wherein the vibration sensor is a three-axis vibration sensor that measures a magnitude of the x-axis and y-axis amplitude in the horizontal direction (MEMS vibration sensor, 110 may be measured in a three-axis direction such as an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis, see [0042]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Nishijima et al with the teachings of a three-axis vibration sensor that measures a magnitude of the x-axis and y-axis amplitude in the horizontal direction as taught by Park because it allows for prevention of damage to the wafer, by more precisely controlling the robot and diagnosing in real time the operation of the robot, see (Park: [0003]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al (US 20220258217 A1) in view of Park (KR 101775126 B1) and in further view of Uehara (JP2009115711A).
In re claim 10. Nishijima et al as modified teaches the substrate cleaning apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the control unit (50) controls the cleaning part (30) and the cleaning devices (31).
Nishijima et al as modified is silent about the control unit detects the size of foreign substances on the substrate from the magnitude of the x-axis and y-axis amplitude in the horizontal direction.
However, Uehara teaches substrate processing apparatus having the control unit detects the size of foreign substances on the substrate from the magnitude of the x-axis and y-axis amplitude in the horizontal direction (foreign matter detecting means for detecting size of the foreign material which the light emitting portion 45a of the foreign matter sensor, 45 is attached to one end portion in the Y-axis direction of the stage, 21 at a height position corresponding to the size of the foreign matter to be detected and arranged in the X-axis direction at predetermined intervals, see [0033] and [0067]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Nishijima et al as modified with the teachings of control unit detects the size of foreign substances on the substrate from the magnitude of the x-axis and y-axis amplitude in the horizontal direction as taught by Uehara because it allows for the stoppage of the movement of the member of the apparatus once a foreign matter is detected to avoid damaging the apparatus (Uehara: [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112b rejection for claim 17 applicant’s cancellation of claim has made the rejection moot and the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the 112b rejection for claims 18 – 20 has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
In regards to arguments of 35 US 102 rejection of amended claim 1:
In regards to applicant’s argument that Nishijima et al detects vibration during an idle state it has been shown as is rejected above that Nishijima et al discloses, “Alternatively, the sensor 72 is not limited to the load cell as long as the sensor 72 measures information concerning a vibration of the roll cleaning member 81 during rotation”, (see Nishijima et al: [0061]); therefore the office maintains the rejection as given above.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Nishijima et al detects a defective brush if vibration exceeds a threshold and not “a defective contact if vibration falls below a threshold” as claimed; the office would state that one of ordinary skill in the art would state that if the brush is defective it cannot contact the substrate and thus would also have a defective contact with the substrate; therefore the office maintains the rejection as given above.
In regards to arguments of 35 US 103 rejection of claims 3, 5 – 7, and 9:
In regards to claim 3, applicant’s argument that Nishijima’ s control logic does not disclose or suggest deriving set values from empirical/experimental cleaning results and as the examiner presented as an obvious optimization but is instead empirical data that contributes a non-obvious technical improvement because it enables predictive quality assessment during operation, not merely detection of abnormal brush load. Applicant has not provided any empirical or experimental data, see MPEP 716.01(c) and therefore the ”optimization” of values used in Nishijima provides for a determination of abnormality; therefore the office maintains the rejection as given above.
In regards to claims 5 - 7, applicant’s argument that Hombo nor Adams teaches or suggest using such time-domain processing in the context of “real time detection of contact state between brush and substrate during cleaning”. As Hombo’s time period data relates to general cleaning time tracking and Adams concerns semiconductor process data aggregation—not mechanical vibration feedback. The examiner provided the main reference of Nishijima et al having the mechanical vibration feedback however Nishijima et al does not explicitly provide for the “at least one second of cleaning nor sum of values during a one second time period”; however Hombo and Adams both in cleaning a substrate apparatus teaches the one second period in which a value is obtained. Therefore the office maintains the rejection as given above.
In regards to claim 9, applicant’s argument that Park teaches the 3-axis sensor for “multichannel diagnostics” that is unrelated to “vibration-based contact evaluation. The examiner provided the main reference of Nishijima et al having the mechanical vibration feedback having a sensor however Nishijima et al does not explicitly provide for the “3-axis sensor”; however Park teaches that 3-axis sensor which can be one of a vibration/vibration frequency given in the abstract. Therefore the office maintains the rejection as given above.
In regards to arguments of 35 US 102 rejection of claims 18 - 20:
In regards to claim 18 - 20, applicant’s argument that Nishijima et al merely “stops the operation upon detecting an abnormality” and the claimed subject matter “performs automatic correction of the substrate posture (i.e. resetting, retraction/advancement, and feedback correction). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained in that the “correction means” has not been claimed as automatic or autonomous and thus wit Nishijima et al stopping the operation and allowing a user to correct the posture of the substrate is a combination of a “correction means”; see rejection of the same above.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Totsu (US 20040089528 A1) that provides “a sliding switch arranged on the housing and configured to be moved in a longitudinal direction of the housing to activate a reversing operation of the drive motor”; see rejection of the same above.
Therefore, claim 1 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 3 – 16 and 18 - 20 are not allowable over the art of record.
Per examiner notes, claim 10 in Non-Final Action on September 19, 2025 was mistakenly not rejected and is now rejected in this Non-Final Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723