DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to communication filed 12/15/2025.
Claims 1-6 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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halbmaier (US 6,248,177 B1)
Re claim 1, Halbmaier discloses a cleaning apparatus (abstract) comprising: a cleaning tank body (see fig. 1 ref. 12) having a body opening and a cleaning space communicating with the body opening (see fig. 1), the cleaning tank body being configured to clean a wafer storage container (ref. c); a lid (ref. A) provided to be openable and closable with respect to the body opening; a mounting stage (ref. 24) provided in the cleaning space, configured to place a shell of the wafer storage container in a state where a shell opening of the shell faces the mounting stage (see figs. 1-2), and formed with a through hole (ref. 26) at a portion that faces the shell opening of the shell to be communicated with a storage space of the shell for storing a semiconductor wafer; a first ejector (ref. 50) configured to eject a cleaning liquid into the storage space of the shell; a second ejector (ref. 30) configured to eject the cleaning liquid into an outer portion of the shell; a first discharge port (ref. 26, 80) communicating with the through hole of the mounting stage and configured to discharge the cleaning liquid ejected into the storage space of the shell; a second discharge port (ref. 28) configured to discharge the cleaning liquid that has passed through the outer portion of the shell; a waste liquid measurement tank (ref. 86) connected to the first discharge port; and a particle counter (col. 11 lines 15-30 particulate detectors (not shown), overlapping with refs. 88, 96 in figs. 15-16) configured to measure particles in the cleaning liquid discharged from the waste liquid measurement tank; a measurement line (line from ref. 86 to 88 or 96 in figs. 15-16) connected the waste liquid measurement tank and the particle counter; a pure-water supply (ref. 95, 94) configured to supply pure water (Intended Use. See MPEP 2114. Also consider col. 11 lines 60-62 fluid may be rinse water), which has not passed through the storage space of the shell and the outer portion of the shell (here, the water entering from refs. 95, 94 has not yet passed the shell of the wafer container), to the measurement line (via ref. 86); and a pipe (remainder of pipe after refs. 88 or 96 to recirculation nozzle 30) configured to discharge the cleaning liquid and the pure water that have passed through the particle counter (Examiner note’s recirculation satisfies the limitation “to discharge”).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbmaier (US 6,248,177 B1).
Re claims 3-5, Halbmaier discloses as shown above including a particle counter. Regarding “controller configured to control the cleaning apparatus such that the wafer storage container is additionally cleaned when a count of the particles measured by the particle counter is equal to or greater than a predetermined value after the wafer storage container is cleaned for a predetermined cleaning time”, it would have been prima facie obvious to use the particle counter to ensure the containers are sufficiently clean. It being well-known in the art to continue cleaning until clean. Regarding “wherein the controller determines a cleaning time to be added based on the count of the particles”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a correlated time to dirtiness level/count of particles, i.e. run another cycle, check, run another cycle, until clean. Regarding “a controller configured to control the cleaning apparatus such that cleaning of the wafer storage container is completed when a count of the particles measured by the particle counter is less than a predetermined value”, similarly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to continue cleaning until the particle counter indicates a sufficient cleanliness level, for the same purpose of ensuring a complete clean. See also col. 9 lines 56-60 “time required to prepare a relatively clean carrier…may be less than the time required to prepare a relatively dirty carrier”.
Re claim 6, Halbmaier further discloses a controller (col. 5 lines 60-62 controls) configured to determine a cleaning time for the wafer storage container based on information on a wafer stored in the wafer storage container (col. 10 lines 2-6 automatic controls; col. 9 lines 56-60 the time is correlated to how dirty the carrier is, as such, it being obvious to determine the time based on dirtiness and to store said information on the carrier for ease of automation).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbmaier (US 6,248,177 B1) in view of JP2005109523A (cited by Applicant) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 2, Halbmaier discloses as shown above but does not disclose wherein the lid has a holder configured to hold a door of the wafer storage container attached to be openable and closable with respect to the shell opening of the shell, and the second ejector further ejects the cleaning liquid onto an inner surface of the door. However, JP2005109523A discloses it is known in the cleaning apparatus art (abstract) to provide the lid (ref. 5, see fig. 3) has a holder (ref. 49) configured to hold a door of the wafer storage container (ref. 51) attached to be openable and closable with respect to the shell opening of the shell, and the second ejector further ejects the cleaning liquid onto an inner surface of the door (via ref. 21, 54). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid and second ejector of Halbmaier to further include a holder and cleaning a door, as suggested by JP2005109523A, in order to clean all parts of the wafer storage container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments as to Halbmaier, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Although Examiner agrees with Applicant’s interpretation of Halbmaier, at issue is the language “a waste liquid measurement tank connected to the first discharge port; a particle counter configured to measure particles in the cleaning liquid discharged from the waste liquid measurement tank; a measurement line connected the waste liquid measurement tank and the particle counter; a pure-water supply configured to supply pure water, which has not passed through the storage space of the shell and the outer portion of the shell, to the measurement line; and a pipe configured to discharge the cleaning liquid and the pure water that have passed through the particle counter”. Here, receptacle 86 reads on “a waste liquid measurement tank”, the particulate counter included with filter 88, 96 reads on “a particle counter”, a measurement line connects ref. 86 and refs. 88, 96, and if the cleaning liquid is water (i.e. intended use), then the additional cleaning fluid via ref. 95, 94 satisfies a pure-water supply, which has not [yet when it is just added] passed through the storage space of the shell and the outer portion of the shell [it goes directly into receptacle 86], to the measurement line [via receptacle 86], and the recirculation pipe to nozzle 30 satisfies a pipe configured to discharge the cleaning liquid and the pure water [additional cleaning fluid] that have passed through the particle counter.
Here, Applicant has not claimed any direct connection between the pure-water supply and the measurement line. Applicant has not claimed any destination or connection to the discharge pipe, e.g. to waste water. Nor has Applicant claimed any separate or negative limitations as to a recirculation system of the cleaning liquid from the waste liquid measurement tank, such to render the structure of Halbmaier inapplicable.
Examiner’s notes Applicant argues the intent and purpose of the particle counter to simply detect the contents of the measurement tank and purge the detector. However, the measurement of a recirculation tank with ability to dilute with fresh water would similarly detect the contents of the measurement tank and [partially] purge the detector.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20130335717A1 note branched particle counter.
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 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
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711