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 the invention of Group I, claims 1-3, in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/19/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/11/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
No explanation of relevance has been provided for “Office Action issued September 3, 2024 in related Japanese Patent Application No 2022-207537”.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/28/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
No explanation of relevance has been provided for “Office Action dated August 27, 2024 in corresponding Japanese Patent Application No 2023-007649”.
No explanation of relevance has been provided for “Office Action dated September 10, 2024 in related Japanese Patent Application No 2022-210810”.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/08/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
No explanation of relevance has been provided for “Office Action dated August 27, 2024 in related Japanese Patent Application No 2022-006892”.
The information disclosure statement filed 05/19/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/07/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103
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.
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.
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura et al (Us 2022/0395866).
Nakamura et al teach a device.
The device comprises:
a processing chamber (2);
a transport device configured to perform a carry-in operation of carrying a substrate into the processing chamber and a carry-out operation of carrying out the substrate from the processing chamber (readable on the substrate carrying robot with a hand RH, at least Figure 4, see also [0096] and [0118]);
a first substrate holder that is provided in the processing chamber and holds the substrate that has been carried in by the transport device (readable at least on the holder 21 and the holder 12A,B);
a brush cleaner (readable at least on part 50) that is provided in the processing chamber and configured to bring a brush (readable at least on part 51) into contact with the substrate held by the first substrate holder to clean a lower surface of the substrate (see at least Figures 2, 7, 12, 17, 19);
a cleaning nozzle (readable at least on nozzles 52) that is provided in the processing chamber and configured to discharge a brush cleaning liquid for cleaning the brush to the brush;
a cleaning liquid supplier (readable on the supplier 56, at least Figures 3) that supplies the brush cleaning liquid to the cleaning nozzle; and
a controller (readable at least on the controller 9, at least Figure 3).
See at least Figures 1-15 and the related description.
As to the limitation requiring that the controller “stops supply of the brush cleaning liquid to the cleaning nozzle in at least part of a period during which the carry-in operation is performed by the transport device and a period during which the carry-out operation is performed by the transport device, by controlling the cleaning liquid supplier”:
Since Nakamura et al teach that the supply discharges liquid when the brush is in contact with the substrate (at least [0100]) and stops the discharge prior to drying and carry-out operation (at least [0116] and [0146]), it is reasonably believed that the liquid is not discharged during the carry-in and carry out operations of the device of Nakamura et al.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at thew time the invention was filed not to discharge the liquid during the carry-in and carry out operations of the device of Nakamura et al in order to prevent contamination of the robot arm RH and to keep the cleaned wafer dried.
As to claim 2:
Nakamura et al teach a transport device comprising:
A transport holder (readable at least on the hand of the robot (RH), at least Figure 4, see also [0096] and [0118]);
A transport driver (readable at least on the robot, at least Figure 4, see also [0096] and [0118]).
Nakamura et al also teach that the controller “further causes the transport holder to enter and exit from the processing chamber from outside of the processing chamber during the carry-in operation performed by the transport device and during the carry-out operation performed by the transport device, by controlling the transport driver”. See at least Figure 4 and [0096] and [0118].
As to the limitation requiring that the controller “stops supply of a brush cleaning liquid from the cleaning nozzle to the brush in a period during which the transport holder is located in the processing chamber, by controlling the cleaning liquid supplier”:
Since Nakamura et al teach that the supply discharges liquid when the brush is in contact with the substrate (at least [0100]) and stops the discharge prior to drying and carry-out operation (at least [0116] and [0146]), it is reasonably believed that the liquid is not discharged during the carry-in and carry out operations of the device of Nakamura et al.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at thew time the invention was filed not to discharge the liquid when the transport holder of Nakamura et al is located in the processing chamber in order to prevent contamination of the robot arm RH and to keep the cleaned wafer dried.
As to claim 3:
Nakamura et al teach that the brush cleaner includes:
The brush 51;
a brush mover (54, 55) configured to move the brush at a cleaning position at which the brush comes into contact with a lower surface of the substrate held by the first substrate holder and a waiting position spaced apart from the substrate held by the first substrate holder.
The position wherein the brush 51 contacts the substrate is shown at least on Figures 7, 12, 17, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33.
The waiting position is described at least at [0006-7], [0008-9], [0014-15, [0017], [0094], [0099], [0106], [0113], [0116], [0121-134], [0147], [0149], [0151], [0155-156], [0158-165], [0171], [0179].
Nakamura et al also show that the cleaning nozzle is configured to discharge a brush cleaning liquid to the brush located at the waiting position (at least Figures 18 and 20, see also at least [0147-0150]).
As to the limitation requiring the controller stops supply of the brush cleaning liquid from the cleaning nozzle to the brush with the substrate not present in the processing chamber and with the brush located at a position other than the waiting position, by controlling the cleaning liquid supplier:
The limitation requiring the controller to stop supply of the brush cleaning liquid from the cleaning nozzle to the brush with the brush located at a position other than the waiting position, by controlling the cleaning liquid supplier is met by the disclosure of Nakamura et al at least at [0161].
As to the limitation requiring the controller stops supply of the brush cleaning liquid from the cleaning nozzle to the brush with the substrate not present in the processing chamber:
Since Nakamura et al teach that the supply discharges liquid when the brush is in contact with the substrate (at least [0100]) and stops the discharge prior to drying and carry-out operation (at least [0116] and [0146]), it is reasonably believed that the liquid is not discharged when the substrate is taken out and not present in the device of Nakamura et al.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at thew time the invention was filed not to discharge the liquid when the substrate is taken out and not present in the device of Nakamura et al in order to prevent unneeded waste of the liquid and reduce the operation cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to processing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 at 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711