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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Fig. 3), claims 1-9, 11-20, in the reply is acknowledged.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner is withdrawing the restriction. No claims are withdrawn.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Miyaji (JP 2009117765 A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, Miyaji discloses a brush for cleaning a wafer 11, the brush comprising:a core 2 extending lengthwise in a first direction (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10); a brushing roller 1 arranged on an outer circumferential surface of the core and having a first region and a second region defined at an outer circumferential surface 3 of the brushing roller (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10); a plurality of first brushing bristles 5 extending from the first region in a radial direction of the brushing roller, wherein the radial direction of the brushing roller is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10); and a plurality of second brushing bristles 5 extending from the second region in the radial direction of the brushing roller, wherein each of the plurality of first brushing bristles has a first shape (Fig. 5), and wherein each of the plurality of second brushing bristles has a second shape different from the first shape (Fig. 5).
Re Claim 2, Miyaji discloses the first region corresponds to a central region at the outer circumferential surface of the brushing roller and contacts a central region of the wafer, and wherein the second region corresponds to an edge region at the outer circumferential surface of the brushing roller and contacts an edge region of the wafer (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10).
Re Claim 4, Miyaji discloses each of the plurality of first brushing bristles comprises: a first compression surface; a first connection surface; and a first side surface connecting the first compression surface to the first connection surface, wherein the first compression surface contacts the central region of the wafer at a first pressure (pg. 9: “Furthermore, an intermediate region may be provided between the central region 6 and the outer end region 7, and the intermediate region may be formed of a material that is harder than the central region 6 and softer than the outer end region 7”), wherein the first connection surface is connected to the brushing roller, and wherein the first compression surface and the first connection surface have substantially the same radius (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10).
Re Claim 5, Miyaji discloses each of the plurality of first brushing bristles has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10).
Re Claim 15, Miyaji discloses the plurality of first and second brushing bristles have substantially the same height (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10).
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 Miyaji.
Re Claim 3, Miyaji does not disclose the first region is within no more than about 50 mm from a center of the brushing roller in an axial direction of the brushing roller, wherein the second region is within no less than about 30 mm from the center of the brushing roller in the axial direction of the brushing roller, and wherein the axial direction of the brushing roller is parallel to the first direction. However, it would be obvious to have these specific dimensions in order to be optimized for cleaning certain wafers in various scenarios as this would be standard engineering practices that can easily be accomplished and further it would have been obvious to adjust the dimensions since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji in view of Kamata (JP 2008119621 A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 6-7, Miyaji discloses each of the plurality of second brushing bristles comprises: a second compression surface; a second connection surface; and a second side surface connecting the second compression surface to the second connection surface, wherein the second compression surface contacts the edge region of the wafer at a second pressure, wherein the second pressure is different from the first pressure (pg. 9: “Furthermore, an intermediate region may be provided between the central region 6 and the outer end region 7, and the intermediate region may be formed of a material that is harder than the central region 6 and softer than the outer end region 7”), wherein the second connection surface is connected to the brushing roller, and wherein the second compression surface has a first radius, and the second connection surface has a second radius (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10). Miyaji does not disclose each of the plurality of second brushing bristles has a truncated conical shape and the second connection surface has a second radius longer than the first radius. However, Kamata teaches each of a plurality of second brushing bristles has a truncated conical shape that extends from the edge region in the radial direction of the brushing roller, second brushing bristles comprises: a compression surface; a connection surface; and a side surface connecting the compression surface to the connection surface, and the compression surface has a first radius, and the connection surface has a second radius longer than the first radius (Fig. 1-4; pg. 6-9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize each of the plurality of second brushing bristles has a truncated conical shape, as taught by Kamata, for the purpose of providing an optimal shape that uses less material and thus is cheaper for raw materials in manufacturing and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the bristles of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 8, Miyaji does not disclose the first radius is substantially the same as a radius of each of the plurality of first brushing bristles. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the first radius substantially the same as a radius of the cylindrical shape of each of the plurality of first brushing bristles for the purpose of providing an optimal shape that cleans the surfaces effectively while using less material and thus is cheaper for raw materials in manufacturing and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the bristles of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47 and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 9, Miyaji/Kamata discloses the plurality of second radii of the plurality of second brushing bristles are the same.
Re Claim 11, Miyaji does not disclose a ratio of the first radius of the second compression surface to the second radius of the second connection surface has a value selected from a range of about 0.5 to about 1.0. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a ratio of the first radius of the second compression surface to the second radius of the second connection surface has a value selected from a range of about 0.5 to about 1.0 for the purpose of providing an optimal shape that cleans the surfaces effectively while using less material and thus is cheaper for raw materials in manufacturing and further it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 12, Miyaji/Kamata discloses each of the plurality of second brushing bristles further comprises a control surface, and wherein, in each second brushing bristle, the control surface is formed at the second side surface and connects the second compression surface to the second connection surface (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10) (Fig. 1-4; pg. 6-9).
Re Claim 13, Kamata teaches the control surface has a gradually increasing width in a direction from the second compression surface to the second connection surface (Fig. 1-4; pg. 6-9).
Re Claim 14, Kamata teaches in each second brushing bristle, a length between a lower end of the control surface and an outermost lower end of the second side surface is substantially the same as the first radius of the second compression surface (Fig. 1-4; pg. 6-9).
Re Claim 16, Miyaji discloses a brush for cleaning a wafer 11, the brush comprising: a core 2 extending lengthwise in a first direction (Fig. 1-12; pg. 6-10); a brushing roller 1 arranged on an outer circumferential surface of the core, the brushing roller having a central region and an edge region defined at an outer circumferential surface of the brushing roller; a plurality of first brushing bristles 5, wherein each of the plurality of first brushing bristles has a cylindrical shape that extends from the central region in a radial direction of the brushing roller, and wherein each of the plurality of first brushing bristles contacts a central region of the wafer at a first pressure; and a plurality of second brushing bristles 5, wherein each of the plurality of second brushing bristles has a shape that extends from the edge region in the radial direction of the brushing roller, and wherein each of the plurality of second brushing bristles contacts an edge region of the wafer at a second pressure higher than the first pressure (pg. 9: “Furthermore, an intermediate region may be provided between the central region 6 and the outer end region 7, and the intermediate region may be formed of a material that is harder than the central region 6 and softer than the outer end region 7”), wherein the plurality of first and second brushing bristles have substantially the same height, wherein each of the plurality of second brushing bristles comprises: a compression surface; a connection surface; and a side surface connecting the compression surface to the connection surface, wherein the compression surface contacts the edge region of the wafer at the second pressure, wherein the connection surface is connected to the brushing roller, and wherein the compression surface has a first radius, and the connection surface has a second radius. Miyaji does not disclose each of the plurality of second brushing bristles has a truncated conical shape that extends from the edge region in the radial direction of the brushing roller and the compression surface has a first radius, and the connection surface has a second radius longer than the first radius. However, Kamata teaches each of a plurality of second brushing bristles has a truncated conical shape that extends from the edge region in the radial direction of the brushing roller, second brushing bristles comprises: a compression surface; a connection surface; and a side surface connecting the compression surface to the connection surface, and the compression surface has a first radius, and the connection surface has a second radius longer than the first radius (Fig. 1-4; pg. 6-9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize each of the plurality of second brushing bristles has a truncated conical shape, as taught by Kamata, for the purpose of providing an optimal shape that uses less material and thus is cheaper for raw materials in manufacturing and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the bristles of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 17, Miyaji does not disclose the first radius is substantially the same as a radius of the cylindrical shape of each of the plurality of first brushing bristles. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the first radius substantially the same as a radius of the cylindrical shape of each of the plurality of first brushing bristles for the purpose of providing an optimal shape that cleans the surfaces effectively while using less material and thus is cheaper for raw materials in manufacturing and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the bristles of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47 and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 18, Miyaji does not disclose the central region of the brushing roller is within no more than about 50 mm from a center of the brushing roller in an axial direction of the brushing roller, wherein the edge region of the brushing roller is within no less than about 30 mm from the center of the brushing roller in the axial direction of the brushing roller, and wherein the axial direction of the brushing roller is parallel to the first direction. However, it would be obvious to have these specific dimensions in order to be optimized for cleaning certain wafers in various scenarios as this would be standard engineering practices that can easily be accomplished and further it would have been obvious to adjust the ambient pressure to be atmospheric since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19-20 is/are allowed.
Claim 10 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights