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
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/13/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 12-20) in the reply filed on 1/13/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims of Groups I and II are related to significantly overlapping and similar subject matter and would result in similar search results. This is not found persuasive because the consideration of undue burden is one that must be made by the examiner. Applicant’s arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive insofar as the searches are not co-extensive, as shown in the restriction requirement, and additional search would be of necessity for the combination of inventions (e.g. the difference species/inventions will require different search strategies including different fields of search and employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 (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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US20210407825) in view of Keigler et al. (US20120306139).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 12, 15-18, Brown et al. teaches a system for cleaning a substrate (see abstract), the system comprising: an input tank 180 (see figure 2, paragraph [0035]); a cleaning tank 124 capable of containing a cleaning fluid for applying to the substrate (see figure 2, paragraphs [0034]-[0035]), the cleaning tank 124 comprising a top surface and an outer surface (see side surfaces of 124 as shown in figure 2) adjacent to the top surface, the top surface and the outer surface defining an inner volume, the outer surface comprising: an upper portion, and a lower portion (see figure 2, paragraphs [0034]-[0038]); a transport system 142/144/700 connected to the lower portion of the cleaning tank 124, the transport system 142/144/700 configured to transport a substrate carrier 140 capable of containing the substrate, and may comprise a walking beam system (reads on claims 3 and 17) or running beam system (reads on claims 3 and 18) (see figure 2, paragraphs [0041]-[0045], [0060]-[0073]); a stationary lid (see top panel of 124 between ports 150 as shown in figure 2) covering a majority of the top surface of the cleaning tank 124 (see figure 2); at least one input lid assembly (see lid used to close an inlet port 150) adjacent to a first side (see e.g. left side) of the stationary lid (see paragraphs [0037], [0040], 0042]-[0043], figure 4c); and at least one output lid assembly (see lid used to close an outlet port 150) adjacent to a second side (see e.g. right side) of the stationary lid (reads on claim 15), wherein the at least one input lid assembly, the stationary lid, and the at least one output lid assembly cover an entirety of the top surface (see figures 2-4d); a rinse tank 126 (see figure 2, paragraphs [0034]-[0036]); an output tank 182 (see figure 2, paragraph [0036]); and a robot system comprising a plurality of robot arms 137 (reads on wet robot) configured to transfer the substrate between the input tank 180, the cleaning tank 124, the rinse tank 126, and the output tank 182 (see figures 2, 4c, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], [0040]-[0043]); a controller configured to cause the system to: insert a substrate into a substrate carrier in the input tank 180 using the one or more wet robots 137 (see e.g. paragraph [0035]); transfer the substrate from the input tank 180 to the cleaning tank 124 using the substrate carrier robot system (see e.g. paragraph [0040]); transport the substrate in the substrate carrier through the cleaning tank 124 for a predetermined period using the transport system 142/144/700 (see e.g. paragraphs [0042]-[0043]); remove the substrate from the cleaning tank 124 using the substrate carrier robot system (see e.g. paragraph [0043]); insert the substrate into the rinse tank 126 using the substrate carrier robot system (see e.g. paragraph [0043]); rinse the substrate in the substrate carrier 140 in the rinse tank 126 (see e.g. paragraph [0044]); remove the substrate from the rinse tank 126 using the substrate carrier robot system (see e.g. figure 4c); place the substrate carrier into the output tank 182 using the substrate carrier robot system (see e.g. paragraph [0036]); and remove the substrate from the substrate carrier 140 using the substrate carrier robot system (see e.g. figure 4d) (see figures 2-4d, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], [0040]-[0043]). Brown et al. does not teach that the robot arms are configured to transfer the substrate carrier between the input tank, the cleaning tank, the rinse tank, and the output tank. Keigler et al. teaches as substrate processing system and substrate holder (see abstract) and that robot arms may be configured to transfer the substrate carrier 360 into and out of processing stations, thereby providing a secure transfer system that also minimizes contact with the wafer surface (see paragraph [0168], figure 13). Since both Brown et al. and Keigler et al. teach substrate processing systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the robot arms in the system by Brown et al. may be configured to transfer the substrate carrier between the input tank, the cleaning tank, the rinse tank, and the output tank, so as to provide a secure transfer system that also minimizes contact with the wafer surface, as shown to be known and conventional by Keigler et al. Hence, in the modified system, it is readily apparent that the controller may be configured to cause the system to remove the substrate carrier from the output tank then place the substrate carrier into the input tank for use with another substrate using the substrate carrier robot system (reads on claim 16).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Brown et al. and Keigler et al. together teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Keigler et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0168]-[0169], figures 13, 8A that the substrate carrier may comprise: a carrier body 360; at least one lift handle feature 362 incorporated in an upper portion of the carrier body 360; and a substrate holder 372/374/376/378 at a bottom inner surface of the carrier body 360 configured to hold the substrate.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Brown et al. and Keigler et al. together teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Brown et al. teaches in paragraphs [0071]-[0072], figure 7 that the transport system 142/144/700 may be a conveyor system 700 comprising a plurality of belts or linkages (see e.g. plurality of wheels, plurality of linkages between belts 710 and supports 140) on opposing sides of the cleaning tank 124 (see conveyor system 700 runs for the entire length of the cleaning tank 124), wherein the plurality of belts or linkages are capable of being actuated to cause a first isolation gap and a second isolation gap (see control of drive mechanism by controller). While Brown et al. does not explicitly teach that the plurality of belts or linkages are actuated to cause first and second isolation gaps. Since the controller is capable of controlling the operation of the belts/linkages and all structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular manner of operation is merely a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 6-7, Brown et al. and Keigler et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Brown et al. also teaches the input lid assembly (see lid used to close an inlet port 150) is capable of being actuated to allow a first portion of the top surface to be exposed such that the robot system transporting the substrate may access the inner volume of the cleaning tank 124 (see figures 2, 4c, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], [0040]-[0043]); and the output lid assembly (see lid used to close an outlet port 150) is capable of being actuated to allow a second portion of the top surface to be exposed such that the robot system may access the substrate within the inner volume of the cleaning tank 124 (see figures 2, 4c, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], [0040]-[0043]). Hence, in the modified system where the robot system transports the substrate carrier, it is readily apparent that the actuation of the input and output lid assemblies would allow the robot system transporting the substrate carrier to access the inner volume of the cleaning tank.
Regarding claim 14, Brown et al. and Keigler et al. together teach the limitations of claim 13. Brown et al. also teaches in paragraph [0072] that the substrate carrier may comprise one or more magnets (see magnetic drive system that drives the movement of the substrate carriers disposed in the cleaning tank 124 and rinse tank 126).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Brown et al. (US20210407825). Brown et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 5 and 20. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711