Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/361,680

BRUSH CLEANING SYSTEM AND BRUSH CLEANING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 28, 2023
Examiner
LEE, KEVIN G
Art Unit
1711
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 581 resolved
-1.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
50.2%
+10.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 581 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/20/2026 has been entered. Acknowledgements This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/20/2026. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, 21 and 24-31 are pending and have been examined. 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. 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 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. 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. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, 21, 24-26 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (US 5,685,039) in view of Kim (KR 2007/0005803 A) (machine translation attached in prior action), Sato (US 2006/0213536 A1) and Liu (CN 115555329 A) (machine translation attached). Re claim 1, Hamada discloses a system (abstract), comprising: a brush cleaning housing (ref. 16, see fig. 5) including a cavity (see fig. 5 interior of ref. 16), a brush head opening providing access to the cavity (see fig. 5 upper opening), a spray opening providing access to access the cavity (opening for ref. 16b), the brush head opening includes a first central axis (vertical), the spray opening includes a third central axis (see fig. 5 axis of ref. 16b slightly downward), and the third central axis is an angle greater than 90-degrees relative to the first central axis aligning the spray opening [downwards away from] the brush head opening; a brush head (ref. 10) including a brush (ref. 10b), the brush head configured to, in operation, clean respective workpieces and to be inserted into the cavity of the brush cleaning housing; and a spray nozzle (ref. 16b) in fluid communication with the cavity of the brush cleaning housing through the spray opening of the brush cleaning housing, wherein the the spray nozzle is directed and is aligned along the third central axis, wherein the spray nozzle is configured to, in operation, clean the brush of the brush head when the brush is within the cavity of the brush cleaning housing by ejecting a spray profile of a pressurized and atomized fluid (“the cleaning liquid is sprayed”). Hamada discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose a wetting opening includes a second central axis; a wetting nozzle in fluid communication with the wetting opening, the wetting nozzle configured to, in operation, wet the brush of the brush head when the brush head is within the cavity of the brush cleaning housing; and the third central axis aligning the spray opening upwards towards the brush head opening and the spray nozzle ejecting a conical spray profile. However, Kim discloses it is known in the semiconductor scrubber art (abstract) to provide a brush wetting apparatus (see figs. 1-2) including a wetting opening (see figs. 1-2 horizontal openings for ref. 150, 140) including a second central axis (horizontal), the second central axis is perpendicular to the first central axis (vertical entry of brush); and a wetting nozzle (ref. 140) in fluid communication with the cavity of the brush cleaning housing through the wetting opening (opening adjacent ref. 120), wherein the wetting nozzle is aligned along the second central axis (see figs. 1-2), wherein the wetting nozzle is configured to, in operation, wet the brush of the brush head when the brush head is within the cavity of the brush cleaning housing by ejecting a stream of fluid (“inject fluid…sprays the fluid to the brush 10 to effectively wetting”). Regarding “the third central axis aligning the spray opening upwards towards the brush head opening”, Sato discloses it is known in the semiconductor scrubber art (abstract) to provide a spray opening and a spray nozzle (refs. 42 or 43) with a third central axis aligning the spray opening upwards towards the brush head opening (see fig. 4). Regarding “a conical spray profile”, Liu discloses it is known in the semiconductor processing cleaning art (abstract) to provide a spray nozzle (refs. 722, 731, 741, 751 see figs. 3-16) ejecting a conical spray profile of a pressurized and atomized fluid (p. 3 last paragraph to p. 4 ¶ 1, “water mist formed by the nozzle can effectively remove pollutants…the first nozzles 722…spray conical water mist”). Liu further discloses first nozzle 722 and/or second nozzles 731 can also…change the spray angle, spray direction, spray distance, spray force, etc., including with a third central axis spraying upwards towards the brush head opening (see figs. 6 and 8 nozzles 741 spraying upwards) in combination with other nozzles spraying along a second central axis (refs. 751, 721). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hamada to further include an additional brush wetting apparatus including a second central axis, as taught by Kim, in order to improve the ability to remove contaminants without physical damage; and to further include additional spray nozzle and spray opening with a third central axis aligning the spray opening upwards, as suggested by Sato, in order to provide enhanced cleaning from multiple angles; and to further include a conical spray profile, as suggested by Liu, in order to effectively remove contaminants. Here, the inclusion of multiple known angles of spray is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of multiple angles of cleaning. Re claims 4-5 and 11 and 21 and 24-25, Kim further discloses wherein: the brush cleaning housing further includes a first housing wall (see fig. 2 upper wall of ref. 120), a second housing wall transverse to the first housing wall, and a third housing wall transverse to the first housing wall (left and right wall respectively), and the first housing wall extends from the second housing wall to the third housing wall (see fig. 2); the brush head opening extends through the first housing wall to the cavity (see fig. 2); the spray opening extends through the second housing wall to the cavity (expected, see Hamada left side); and the wetting opening extends through the third housing wall to the cavity (see fig. 2 of Kim wetting nozzles on both sides). Re claim 11, the third central axis is at a second angle different from the first angle (Here, the combination of Kim/Hamada/Sato includes may include at least 3 different angles, down, horizontal and upwards for all angle cleaning). Re claim 21, The first housing wall, the second housing wall and the third housing wall read on the “plurality of housing walls”. Re claims 5 and 24-25, Hamada discloses wherein: the brush cleaning housing further includes a spray nozzle reception structure at the second housing wall (opening for passage of 16e); and the spray opening extends through a spray nozzle direction structure (see fig. 5), and the spray opening is transverse to the second housing wall (see fig. 5). Re claims 6 and 12-13, Kim further discloses wherein: the brush cleaning housing further includes a first housing wall (see fig. 2 upper wall of ref. 120), and a second housing wall transverse to the first housing wall (either sidewall); the brush head opening extends through the first housing wall to the cavity (see fig. 2); and the spray opening extends through the second housing wall to the cavity (see fig. 2 left wall). Re claim 7, Hamada discloses a spray opening (see fig. 5 left opening for 16b), the spray opening is in fluid communication with the cavity of the brush cleaning housing through the spray opening. Re claims 8-10 and 26, Hamada further discloses a workpiece cleaning housing in close proximity to the brush cleaning housing (ref. 1, see fig. 4); wherein the brush head is configured to, in operation, move between the workpiece cleaning housing and the brush cleaning housing, be inserted into the cavity of the brush cleaning housing, and be inserted into the workpiece cleaning housing (see fig. 4 rotation arrow for ref. 10); the workpiece cleaning housing is configured to, in operation, receive a workpiece to be cleaned by the brush of the brush head (see figs. 2-3); and the brush head is configured to, in operation, clean the workpiece when within the workpiece cleaning housing (see figs. 2-3). Re claim 14, Kim further discloses wherein a wetting opening in at least one of the following of the second housing wall and the third housing wall (see fig. 2 ref. 140 on either side); Re claim 23, Kim further discloses a wetting nozzle in fluid communication with the wetting opening, the wetting nozzle configured to, in operation, wet the brush of the brush head when the brush head is within the cavity of the brush cleaning housing (see fig. 2). Re claims 27-29, Regarding “wherein: the spray opening extends through a first housing wall of the plurality of housing walls; and the wetting opening extends through a second housing wall of the plurality of housing walls, and the second housing wall is opposite to the first housing wall”, Kim and Sato disclose spray openings/wetting openings on opposing housing walls (see Kim figs. 1-2; Sato fig. 4). Here, the mere rearrangement of different openings/nozzles on different walls is prima facie obvious for the purpose of plumbing space and/or different angles of cleaning. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts. Re claim 29, wherein: the brush cleaning housing includes an upper housing wall that extends between the first housing wall and the second housing wall (see Sato fig. 4 upper housing wall); and the brush head opening is along the upper housing wall and extends through the upper housing wall to the cavity (see fig. 4). Re claims 30-31, wherein the second angle is 90-degrees (see Kim figs. 1-2 horizontal being 90 degrees to vertical); Re claim 31, Regarding “wherein the wetting nozzle and the spray nozzle are configured to, in operation, simultaneously wet and spray the brush of the brush head. this recitation is a statement of intended use which does not patentably distinguish over the combination Hamada/Kim/Sato since the combination meets all the structural elements of the claim(s) (i.e. a plurality of nozzles for spraying/wetting (Kim) and at least nozzles for rinse agent supply and at least nozzles for solution circulation (Sato)) and is capable of simultaneously wet and spray, if so desired. See MPEP 2114. Further, there being no claimed structure distinguishing wetting versus spraying, such that the all nozzles both wets and sprays the brush of the brush head. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made as shown in the rejection above, in view of Liu (CN 115555329 A). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm. 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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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. KEVIN G. LEE Examiner Art Unit 1711 /KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 07, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 16, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 26, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588798
DISHWASHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588796
A DOOR OPENER FOR A DOMESTIC APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584258
LAUNDRY PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584637
HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12532961
PAINT BRUSH AND ROLLER WASHER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+26.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 581 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month