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 .
This Office action is in response to amendments filed on 01/21/2026. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US Patent No. 10,790,167).
Regarding claim 1, Patel (US Patent No. 10,790,167) discloses a wafer cleaning brush (item 4; figs. 1-3) comprising:
a rotatable core (designated in annotated fig. 2; defined as core measured by inner diameter, i.e. I.D.; figs. 1-2);
a brush body (item 8; figs 1-3) surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the core (fig. 2); and
a plurality of protrusions (items 14; figs. 1-3) disposed on a surface (item 12; fig. 1) of the brush body,
wherein each of the plurality of protrusions comprises a width (item n.d.; fig. 1) measured in a length direction (designated in annotated fig. 2 below) of the brush body (width n.d. measured along length direction; fig. 2 below),
wherein a pitch (item N.S.; fig. 1) of the plurality of protrusions is in the length direction of the brush body (fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
158
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2.
Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the pitch is within a range of 11 mm to 15 mm.
However, Patel teaches a range of pitch length that overlaps with the claimed pitch length (col. 4, ll. 48-50; disclosed pitch range between 5 mm to 22 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the pitch length from between 5 mm to 22 mm to between 11 mm to 15 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Further, Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of each of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm. However, Patel teaches a width range that overlaps with the claimed width range (col. 4, ll. 62-64; disclosed width range between 4 mm to 15 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the width from between 4 mm to 15 mm to between 5 mm to 8 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Additionally, Patel does not explicitly disclose an interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction (defined in annotated fig. 1 below) of the brush body is in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm.
PNG
media_image2.png
268
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further select an interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction to be in range of 5 mm to 8 mm. The claimed dimension is recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the interval is smaller (corresponding to the nodule spacing N.S. being smaller as distance between protrusions moves closer) , there may be a higher risk of scratching the substrate because there is little room between nodules for particles to escape from under the brush nodules (Patel; col. 5, ll. 40-44); while if the interval is larger (corresponding to the nodule spacing N.S. being greater as distance between protrusions is further apart), then there is risk that there will not be sufficient contact area to clean efficiently because there is greater free space on the brush without nodules, e.g. protrusions (Patel; col. 5, ll. 44-46). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Patel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the range of the interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction to be 5 mm to 8 mm.
Lastly, wherein, for each of the plurality of protrusions, a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is less than 0.55 (as claimed and recited above, width of the protrusion is between 5 mm to 8 mm and pitch value is between 11 mm to 15 mm; therefore, for each of the plurality of protrusions dividing the respective width value 5 mm by respective pitch value 11 mm, e.g. both lower ends of the respective ranges, the value is 0.45, i.e. less than 0.55).
Regarding claim 3, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the pitch is in a range of 11 mm to 13 mm, and for each of the plurality of protrusions, the value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.515 to 0.525.
However, Patel teaches a range of pitch length that overlaps with the claimed pitch length (col. 4, ll. 48-50; disclosed pitch range between 5 mm to 22 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the pitch length from between 5 mm to 22 mm to between 11 mm to 13 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Lastly, wherein for each of the plurality of protrusions, the value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.515 to 0.525 (as claimed and recited above, width range is within 5 mm to 8 mm and pitch range is within 11 mm to 13 mm; therefore, dividing width value 5.7 mm, e.g. width value within range, by pitch value 11 mm, e.g. lower end of the pitch range, the value is 0.518, i.e. within range of 0.515-0.525).
Regarding claim 4, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of each of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 5.5 mm to 7.0 mm.
However, Patel teaches a width range that overlaps with the claimed width range (col. 4, ll. 62-64; disclosed width range between 4 mm to 15 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the width from between 4 mm to 15 mm to between 5.5 mm to 7 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 5, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the pitch is in a range of 14 mm to 15 mm, and for each of the plurality of protrusions, the value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.505 to 0.515.
However, Patel teaches a range of pitch length that overlaps with the claimed pitch length (col. 4, ll. 48-50; disclosed pitch range between 5 mm to 22 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the pitch length from between 5 mm to 22 mm to between 14 mm to 15 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Lastly, wherein for each of the plurality of protrusions, the value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.505 to 0.515 (as claimed and recited above, the width range is between 5 mm to 8 mm; therefore, dividing width value 7.1 mm, e.g. selected width value within range, by pitch value 14 mm, e.g. lower end of the pitch range, the value is 0.507, i.e. within range of 0.505-0.515).
Regarding claim 6, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of each of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 7 mm to 8 mm.
However, Patel teaches a width range that overlaps with the claimed width range (col. 4, ll. 62-64; disclosed width range between 4 mm to 15 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the width from between 4 mm to 15 mm to between 7 mm to 8 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 7, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of each of the plurality of protrusions is a range of 1 mm to 5 mm.
However, Patel teaches a height range that overlaps with the claimed height range (col. 4, ll. 59-62; disclosed height range between 2 mm to 8 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the portion of the Patel height that is between 2 mm and 5 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 8, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein a horizontal cross-sectional shape of each of the plurality of protrusions is a circular shape (col. 6, ll. 6-12; each plurality of protrusions is a cylindrical or truncated cone shape, which both define a circular cross-section shape at a horizontal; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the wafer cleaning brush comprises a cylindrical shape (col. 8, ll. 51) having a circular bottom (fig. 3C of US Publication US 2013/0048018 expressly incorporated by reference in Patel; col. 6, ll. 2-5) and a height (designated in annotated fig. 3C of US ‘018 below, corresponding to dimension O.D. in fig. 1 of Patel), and based on a cross-section cut parallel to the circular bottom (fig. 3C of US’018), a quantity B of the plurality of protrusions (defined as 16 protrusions along circular cross-section; designated as gray highlighted protrusions in annotated fig. 3C of US’018 below) satisfy Equation 2 below:
Equation 2:
(
P
2
4
+
(
π
*
r
B
)
2
> D
wherein P is the pitch of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction of the brush body (pitch defined as between 11 mm to 15 mm), D is the width of each of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction of the brush body (width defined within 5 mm to 8 mm), and r is a radius of the brush body (radius defined as O.D. minus height of protrusions on upper and lower ends, then divided by two; wherein O.D. ranges between 40-70 mm, height of protrusions defined as 2 mm to 8 mm; thereby, radius ranging with 18 mm to 27 mm; col. 4, ll. 59-62 and col. 5, ll. 31-39; fig. 1).
Equation 2 with values from ranges above:
(
11
2
4
+
(
π
*
27
16
)
2
> 5 mm to 8 mm
5.65 mm > 5 mm
PNG
media_image3.png
130
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3C of US’018 (expressly incorporated by reference in Patel).
Regarding claim 11, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 10, wherein the quantity B of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 12 to 20 (fig. 3C of US’018, quantity of plurality of protrusions is 16, which is within range).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US Patent No. 10,790,167) in view of Ouzumi (US 2020/0276619).
Regarding claim 9, Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1, wherein a quantity A of the plurality of protrusions disposed in the length direction of the brush body (defined as 23 protrusions along length direction; designated as gray highlighted protrusions in second annotated fig. 2 below) satisfies Equation 1 below:
Equation 1:
(
P
(
A
-
1
)
+
P
/
2
)
+
D
<
L
,
wherein P is the pitch of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction of the brush body (pitch defined as between 11 mm to 15 mm), D is the width of each of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction of the brush body (width defined within 5 mm to 8 mm), and L is a length of the brush body.
Equation 1 with values from ranges above:
(
11
(
23
-
1
)
+
11
/
2
)
+
5
<
L
252.5
m
m
<
L
PNG
media_image4.png
158
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 2.
Though Patel discloses a length of the brush body (L) is defined as longer than a diameter of wafer (in view of fig. 3B of US Publication US 2013/0048018 expressly incorporated by reference in Patel; col. 6, ll. 2-5), Patel does not explicitly disclose the exact dimension of the length.
However, Ouzumi (US 2020/0276619) teaches an apparatus for cleaning a wafer comprising a cleaning brush, wherein a diameter of the wafer ranges between 300 mm or 450 mm (pp. [0071]; fig. 11 embodiment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the wafer, as disclosed in Patel, to be dimensioned within 300 mm to 450 mm with the length of the cleaning brush extending beyond the diameter size, e.g. L is larger than between 300 mm to 450 mm, so that the cleaning brush could function as intended, thereby meeting the equation 1 above (e.g. 252.5 mm < 300-450 mm).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US Patent No. 10,790,167) in view of Dickey (US Patent No. 6,240,588).
Regarding claim 13, Patel (US Patent No. 10,790,167) discloses a wafer cleaning device comprising
a brush (item 4; figs. 1-3) comprises:
a rotatable core (designated in first annotated fig. 2 above; defined as core measured by inner diameter, i.e. I.D.; figs. 1-2);
a brush body (item 8; figs 1-3) surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the core (fig. 2); and
a plurality of protrusions (items 14; figs. 1-3) each disposed on a surface (item 12; fig. 1) of the brush body (figs. 1-2) and comprising a circular horizontal cross-section (col. 6, ll. 6-12; each plurality of protrusions is a cylindrical or truncated cone shape, which both define a circular cross-section shape at a horizontal; fig. 2),
wherein each of the plurality of protrusions comprises a width (item n.d.; fig. 1) measured in a length direction (designated in annotated fig. 2 above) of the brush body (width n.d. measured along length direction; fig. 2 above),
wherein a pitch (item N.S.; fig. 1) of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction of the brush body (fig. 2 above).
Patel does not explicitly disclose the range of pitch length is within 11 mm to 15 mm.
However, Patel teaches a range of pitch length that overlaps with the claimed pitch length (col. 4, ll. 48-50; pitch range is within 5 mm to 22 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the pitch length from between 5 mm to 22 mm to between 11 mm to 15 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Further, Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the width of each of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm. However, Patel teaches a width range that overlaps with the claimed width range (col. 4, ll. 62-64; disclosed width range between 4 mm to 15 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the width from between 4 mm to 15 mm to between 5 mm to 8 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Additionally, Patel does not explicitly disclose an interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction (defined in annotated fig. 1 below) of the brush body is in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further select an interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction to be in range of 5 mm to 8 mm. The claimed dimension is recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the interval is smaller (corresponding to the nodule spacing N.S. being smaller as distance between protrusions moves closer) , there may be a higher risk of scratching the substrate because there is little room between nodules for particles to escape from under the brush nodules (Patel; col. 5, ll. 40-44); while if the interval is larger (corresponding to the nodule spacing N.S. being greater as distance between protrusions is further apart), then there is risk that there will not be sufficient contact area to clean efficiently because there is greater free space on the brush without nodules, e.g. protrusions (Patel; col. 5, ll. 44-46). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Patel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the range of the interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction to be 5 mm to 8 mm.
Further, based on the teachings above, the following limitations are met: wherein for each of the plurality of protrusions, a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.505 to 0.525 (width range defined within 5 mm to 8 mm; therefore, dividing width value 5.7 mm, e.g. width value within range, by pitch value 11 mm, e.g. lower end of the pitch range, the value is 0.518, i.e. within range of 0.505-0.525).
Lastly, though Patel discloses the wafer cleaning brush being used to clean one side of the wafer (fig. 3C of US Publication US 2013/0048018 expressly incorporated by reference in Patel; col. 6, ll. 2-5), Patel does not explicitly disclose a pair of brushes respectively disposed on an upper surface of a wafer and a lower surface of the wafer.
However, Dickey (US Patent No. 6,240,588) teaches a wafer cleaning device (embodiment of fig. 2A) comprising a pair of brushes (items 200a, 200b; fig. 2A) respectively disposed on an upper surface of a wafer (fig. 2B) and a lower surface of the wafer (fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second brush disposed on an opposing side of the wafer, as disclosed in Dickey, in order to perform double-sided cleaning of the wafer thereby, allowing for more efficient cleaning as each brush can clean different surfaces of the wafer simultaneously and achieving more uniform cleaning across the wafer surfaces.
Regarding claim 14, Patel as modified discloses the wafer cleaning device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the brush body comprises a cylindrical shape (col. 8, ll. 51) having a circular bottom (fig. 3 of US Publication US 2013/0048018 expressly incorporated by reference in Patel; col. 6, ll. 2-5) and a height (designated in annotated fig. 3C of US ‘018 above, corresponding to dimension O.D. in fig. 1 of Patel), and based on a cross-section cut parallel to the bottom (fig. 3C in US’018), a quantity of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 12 to 20 (fig. 3C of US’018, quantity of plurality of protrusions is 16, which is within range).
Regarding claim 15, Patel as modified discloses the wafer cleaning device as claimed in claim 13. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein a height of each of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 1 mm to 5 mm.
However, Patel teaches a height range that overlaps with the claimed width range (col. 4, ll. 59-62; disclosed width range between 2 mm to 8 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the portion of the Patel height that is between 2 mm and 5 mm since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the inclusion of these ranges, corresponding to the width of each plurality of protrusions in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm and an interval in a range between 5 mm to 8 mm, clarifies “that the claimed inventions relies on a specific combination of values to obtain specific, and unexpected, result…Thus, while Patel [the art of record] may broadly discuss ranges which overlap with the various ranges of Applicant’s invention, Patel misses the key benefit of restricting the D/P ration in the manner specifically recited by applicant” (p. 10-11 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regard to the first range inclusion, e.g. the width of each of the plurality of protrusions in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm, the Examiner notes Patel teaches a width range that overlaps with the claimed width range and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the width from between 4 mm to 15 mm (the disclosed width range from Patel) to between 5 mm to 8 mm (the claimed range) since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please refer to MPEP 2144.05.
Further, in regard to the second range inclusion, e.g. interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction is in a range of 5 mm to 8 mm, the Examiner notes Patel teaches the results when the spacing, N.S., is either too small or too large, which analogously corresponds to the spacing between each protrusion, defined as the interval. The Examiner refers to MPEP 716.02 in regard to evidence that must be shown for unexpected results, which the applicant did not include in response filed on 01/21/2026.
Therefore, the art of record, Patel (10,790,167), remains relevant for the amended claims, and as necessitated by the amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Patel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishibashi (US 2016/0126113) discloses a wafer cleaning device comprising a pair of brushes configured to be disposed on an upper and lower surface of a wafer, wherein each of the pair of brushes comprises a rotatable core, a brush body, and a plurality of protrusions including a height and a width, and wherein an interval of the plurality of protrusions is measured in the length direction of the wafer.
Tyrrell (US 2013/0255721) discloses a wafer cleaning brush comprising a rotatable core, a brush body, and a plurality of protrusions, wherein each of the plurality of protrusions comprises a width measured in a length direction of the brush body.
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 SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights