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, 4, 6-8, 11, and 13-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, consider amending to, -- The wafer cleaning device of claim 13, wherein: the quantity of the plurality of protrusions is in a range of 12 to 20.—to reduce repetitive limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6-8, and 11 are 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 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 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.
Further, Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein when the pitch is in a range of 11mm to 13mm, a 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. Based on the teachings above, the following limitations are met: a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.515 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 0.515-0.525).
Further, Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein when the pitch is in a range of 14mm to 15mm, a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.505 to 0.515.
However, as stated above, 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. Based on the teachings above, the following limitations are met: a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.505 to 0.515 (width range defined within 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).
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.
Based on the teachings above, Patel discloses 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_image3.png
158
402
media_image3.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).
Lastly, based on the teachings above, Patel discloses 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_image4.png
130
179
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3C of US’018 (expressly incorporated by reference in Patel).
Regarding claim 4, Patel as modified 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 6, Patel as modified 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 as modified 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 as modified 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 11, Patel as modified discloses the wafer cleaning brush as claimed in claim 1, 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).
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 Ouzumi (US 2020/0276619) and 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 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.
Patel does not explicitly disclose the range of pitch length is within 11 mm to 13 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 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. Based on the teachings above, the following limitations are met: a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.515 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).
Further, Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein when the pitch is in a range of 14mm to 15mm, a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.505 to 0.515. However, as stated above, 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. Therefore, based on the teachings above, the following limitations are met: a value obtained by dividing the width of the protrusion by the pitch is in a range of 0.505 to 0.515 (width range defined within 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).
Additionally, Patel does not explicitly disclose an interval of the plurality of protrusions in the length direction (defined in annotated fig. 1 above) 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.
Based on the teachings above, Patel discloses 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 above) 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
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).
Further, based on the teachings above, Patel discloses 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 above) 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
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 the cylindrical shape (col. 8, ll. 51) having the circular bottom (fig. 3 of US Publication US 2013/0048018 expressly incorporated by reference in Patel; col. 6, ll. 2-5) and the height (designated in annotated fig. 3C of US ‘018 above, corresponding to dimension O.D. in fig. 1 of Patel), and based on the 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 Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/21/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 13 based upon 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action for at least the following reasons: nexus requirement and evidence of nonobviousness, probative value of objective evidence, allegations of unexpected results, evidence must show unexpected results, unexpected results commensurate in scope with claimed invention, and comparison with closest prior art.
In regard to the nexus requirement and evidence of nonobviousness, the applicant or patent owner bears the burden of establishing a nexus between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention. Nexus is presumed when the applicant or patent owner shows the asserted objective evidence of record is tied to a certain product and that product includes the claimed features, and is coextensive with them. There is not a nexus between the alleged D/P ratio and the claimed elements of the invention. Please refer to MPEP 716.01(b).
In regard to the probative value of objective evidence, the Examiner notes a declaration which states only conclusion(s) may have some probative value, however such a declaration from the applicant of the invention (referring to no. 1-4 on p. 1 of declaration) may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application as opinion evidence. Please refer to MPEP 716.01(c).III.
In regard to allegations of unexpected results, evidence must show unexpected results, unexpected results commensurate in scope with claimed invention, the Examiner notes the nonobviousness of a claimed range may be supported by data showing unexpected results of a narrower range under certain circumstances. Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. Therefore, in view of no. 5-17 on p. 2-6 of declaration, Table 1 does not include nodule pitch below 11 mm or above 15 mm (i.e. outside of claimed pitch range), nodule diameter, also defined as width, below 5 mm or above 8 mm (i.e. outside of claimed width range), and further, Graph 3 does not include D/P ratio data below 0.505 or above 0.525 (i.e. outside of claimed value range). Though the applicant argues a “shifting sweet spot” for the D/P ratio (no. 14 on p. 5-6 of declaration), the tests do not show values at the end of the range, i.e. 0.505 value, nor values below and above the range. Please refer to MPEP 716.02, 716.02(a), and 716.02(d).
Further, in regard to comparison with closest prior art, a declaration must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In view of nos. 5 and 7 on p. 2-3 of declaration, the applicant compares claimed subject matter with the prior art Rippey and Aion. It is unclear to the Examiner which references Rippey and Aion are referring to. The prior art from Final Rejection is Patel (US Patent No. 10,790,167), where Patel discloses overlapping ranges for protrusion pitch and protrusion width, which are both the values included in the ratio value, D/P (D = width of protrusion, and P = pitch of protrusion). Though the Examiner notes the claimed invention may be compared with prior art that is closer than the art applied by the Examiner, it is still unclear to the Examiner which references Rippey and Aion are referring to. Please refer to MPEP 716.02(e).
Accordingly, for at least the reasons above, the declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 13 in view of Patel (US 10,790,167).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the “pitch-dependent ratios are critical because the optimal D/P ratio must be adjusted according to the pitch to effectively compensate for changes in protrusion density and contact pressure distribution, thereby maintaining uniform contact frequency across the wafer. While Patel [the art of record] may disclose overlapping ranges, Patel is not in possession of the specific benefits for narrowing the ranges as recited in Applicant’s claims” (p. 8-9 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. The 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.
Applicant further argues, “the ranges and formulas expressed in the claims are not merely ‘routine optimization’. The specific restrictions on the numerical ranges of Diameter (D) and Pitch (P) optimized wafer contact uniformity, which in turn minimizes contact frequency at the wafer center and reduce Max/Min contact ratio, directly improving cleaning uniformity” (p. 10 of Remarks). The Examiner notes the disclosed ranges in Patel overlap the claimed ranges of the instant disclosure and thereby, “routine optimization” was not utilized for the ranges specifically challenged in the argument, i.e. diameter and pitch.
To further support applicant’s arguments of the claimed ranges and D/P ratio, the applicant filed a declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132. Please refer to section above for response to declaration and thereby, the response to arguments regarding diameter and pitch of protrusions used in Equation 1 and Equation 2 (p. 9-10 of Remarks).
Therefore, the art of record, Patel (10,790,167), remains relevant for the amended claims, and as necessitated by the amendments, a new ground 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.
Chen (US Patent No. 12,131,896) discloses a wafer cleaning brush having a plurality of protrusions formed along an outer surface of the brush, wherein the protrusions may be varied according to specific arrangements.
Emami (US Patent No. 6,299,698) discloses a wafer cleaning brush having an outer surface and a plurality of protrusions, wherein the plurality of protrusions include a width, a height, and an interval between the protrusions.
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
Prosecution Insights