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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply filed 11/11/2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-21 are pending. Claims 2, 3, and 10 are canceled; claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn. Claims 20 and 21 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error. Apparently, the word “cooing” should read as “cooling”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error. The phrase “suppress keep” should read either “suppress” or “keep”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111842380, machine translation referenced herein) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0247900).
Regarding Claim 1: Chen teaches a washing device comprising:
a supporter (Fig. 1, element 2) configured to support a container (element 101), the container being capable of storing a substrate therein, the container having an inner surface facing the substrate when stored and an outer surface opposite to the inner surface;
a temperature adjuster (Figs. 1, 2) that is configured to at least one of: heat a first fluid for washing the container (element 323); or cool a second fluid for washing the container, to prepare the first fluid having a first temperature and the second fluid having a second temperature lower than the first temperature; and
a washer (element 3) that is configured to supply the first fluid to the inner surface (pg. 5, second full paragraph) of the container to heat and wash the inner surface of the container (via element 311b), and to supply the second fluid to the outer surface of the container (pg. 5, second full paragraph) to cool and wash the outer surface of the container (via element 321a). It is noted that Chen describes the first fluid as steam having high thermal energy, and the second fluid as water which is supplied at a lower temperature than that of the steam (pg. 4, fourth full paragraph). Therefore, the washer is considered as being configured to supply the second fluid to cool and wash the container as claimed.
Chen describes the washer as sub-nozzles configured to supply the fluid having the first temperature to the inner and outer surfaces (pg. 5, second full paragraph and Fig. 1), but is silent as to a first water channel including a portion extending into the container and a second water channel to supply the fluid to the outer surface. However, Park teaches a similar washing device comprising a supporter to support a substrate storage container, and a washer comprising a first water channel including a portion (Fig. 4, element 640-2) extending into the supported container to clean in the interior of the container, and a second water channel (element 640-1) to supply fluid to an outer surface of the container. The water channels described by Park are sub-nozzle systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the washing device of Chen with a first water channel having a portion to extend into the container to clean the container interior and a water channel to supply fluid to the outer surface of the container to efficiently deliver the cleaning fluid, as suggested by Park.
It is noted that the claim has been amended to recite the water channels are configured to supply the first fluid and second fluid during a first period of time. This limitation is regarded as an intended use of the device. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 4: Chen further teaches that the first temperature is equal to or higher than about 70C (pg. 4, fifth full paragraph discloses steam).
Regarding Claim 5: Chen further teaches that the first fluid before being heated by the temperature adjusted is liquid water (element 314); the first fluid after being heated by the temperature adjuster is steam (which reads on vapor-like water; pg. 4, fifth full paragraph); and the washer supplies the steam to the first surface to heat and wash the container (pg. 4, fourth full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Chen teaches that the temperature adjuster structure is that of a liquid channel which can supply a liquid to contact the container surfaces. The supply channel of Chen is fully capable of carrying a fluid having the temperature in the range as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7: Chen further teaches that the temperature adjuster is further configured to supply a gas for cooling the container, and the temperature adjuster is further configured to supply the gas to the second surface to cool the container (pg. 8, fifth full paragraph teaches a supply of nitrogen or dry air for dissipating the steam).
Regarding Claim 8: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Chen teaches that the temperature adjuster structure is that of a liquid channel which can supply a liquid to contact the container surfaces. Though Chen does not expressly disclose various liquids, the liquid channel of Chen is deemed fully capable of supplying another liquid as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Again, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Chen teaches the use of steam followed by water. The liquid channel of Chen is deemed fully capable of supplying the water at a temperature which yields a temperature difference within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 11: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Chen teaches that the washer is configured to supply both the steam and water to the container as discussed above. As no further structure is required, the structure of Chen is thus capable of supplying fluids to create a temperature differential in a range as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12: Chen further teaches that the washer is configured to accumulate or shower the first fluid into the container to heat and wash the container (pg. 5, second full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 13: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, and further teaches a controller configured to control the washer to alternately heat and cool the container by supplying the first fluid to the first surface of the container and by supplying the second fluid to the second surface of the container (pg. 4, fourth full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 14: Chen further teaches that the washer includes a first washing unit (element 311a) that washes a first part of the container and a second washing unit (element 321b) that washes a second part of the container.
Regarding Claim 15: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above. It is noted that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (MPEP 2115). The structure of Chen is fully capable of washing a main body of the container and a lid of the container as claimed, as the structure can support several articles for washing.
Regarding Claim 16: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above, and Chen further teaches that the first washing unit washes the first part in a state in which a bottom portion of the first part faces downward (pg. 5, fourth full paragraph discloses the container may face downward).
Regarding Claim 17: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above, and Chen further teaches that the first washing unit washes the first part in a state in which a bottom portion of the first part faces up (pg. 5, fourth full paragraph discloses the container may face upward).
Regarding Claim 20: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Chen further teaches a plurality of the first water channel and a plurality of the second water channels (pg. 8, second full paragraph teaches that the number of sub-nozzles may be three or more). It is noted that the claim has been amended to recite the water channels are configured to supply the first fluid and second fluid during a first period of time. This limitation is regarded as an intended use of the device. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 21: Chen and Park teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. The instant claim has been added to recite the intended use of the apparatus without reciting additional structural features. As such, the device of Chen and Park is considered fully capable of supplying the first and second fluid in the manner as claimed, thus reading on the instant claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the cited prior art does not teach the first water channel is configured to supply the first fluid having the first temperature to the inner surface of the container during a first period of time and a second water channel configured to supply the second fluid having the second temperature to the outer surface during the first period of time, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, Chen in view of Park teach the required fluid supply to the inner and outer surface of the container. Thus, the structure of Chen in view of Park is fully capable of providing the fluid in the manner as claimed.
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 NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714