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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that other groups have similar subject matter and separate searches would likely identify the same references. This is not found persuasive because a serious search burden exists due to a different field of search required and their different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 8-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transport system” in claims 1-2 & 6-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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, & 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US20210407824A1) in view of Brown (WO1999017342A1, hereafter B1) and Lee (KR20060114953A).
As to claim 1, Brown discloses a substrate cleaning system (abstract) comprising an input tank (Fig.2 ref 180); a cleaning tank (Fig.2 ref 124, see specifically portion that bounds ref 134) configured to contain a cleaning fluid (Fig.2 ref 134) for applying to the substrate, the cleaning tank comprising: a top surface (see Fig.2 top area above ref 134) and an outer surface (see Fig.2 upper and outer walls of ref 124 that bound ref 134 and define the inner volume in which ref 134 is contained) adjacent to the top surface, the top surface and the outer surface defining an inner volume (see ref 134), the outer surface comprising: an upper portion and a lower potion (see Fig.2 upper and lower portions of outer wall that bound ref 134); a transport system (see Figs.4A-7) provided at a top [0068] or bottom [0060] of the container and configured to transport the substrate; a stationary lid (Fig.2 portion between refs 150, see also [0037] stating that the access ports open and close to prevent fumes escaping and improve cleanliness thereby indicating the portion of the top which is not ref 150 is a closed surface) covering a majority of the top surface of the cleaning tank (see Fig.2); an input lid assembly adjacent to a first side of the stationary lid (see Fig.2 ref 150 disposed on left); an output lid assembly adjacent to a second side of the stationary lid (see Fig.2 ref 150 disposed on right), where 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 Fig.2); a rinse tank (Fig.2 ref 126); an output tank (Fig.2 ref 182); and a robot system comprising a plurality of robot arms configured to transfer the substrate between the input tank, cleaning tank, rinse tank, and output tank [0034]. Brown does not explicitly disclose the transport system connected to the upper or lower portion of the cleaning tank. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that the connection of the transport system to the wall would merely amount to a rearrangement of the connection location for the transport system without affecting its operation. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to connect the transport system to any portion of the container so long as it remains capable of transporting the substrates (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, the connection of a transport system to a wall of a tank is known in the art as seen by Lee. Brown indicates the transport system and robot system transporting substrates and not substrate carriers which carry the substrate. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of B1.
B1 discloses an art related wafer treating apparatus (abstract), wherein substrates can be provided in a cleaning tank (see Figs.9a-9b ref 465) within a carrier (see Fig.9a refs 50a & 50b) or as individual wafers (see Fig.9b). B1 also indicates the use of a transport system within the tank in order to transfer the substrates from one end of the tank, where they are inserted into said tank, to another end of the tank, where the substrates are removed [0066-0068]. Thus, B1 suggests that providing substrates within a cleaning tank in either a carrier or the substrates alone are known alternative arrangements in the art.
Lee discloses an art related system for wet processing a wafer (abstract), wherein the substrate is provided in a bath (Fig.2 ref 30 or Fig.5 ref 70) defined by outer walls (Fig.2 ref 32 or Fig.5 ref 72) and a transport system is attached to the walls of bath (see Figs.2 & 5). Thus, Lee showcases that a known location for attachment of a transport mechanism within a bath is connected to the walls of said bath.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Brown to provide the transport system connected to an interior side of the outer wall portion, as such is a known location for attachment of a transport mechanism in the art. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known attachment location when one is not explicitly disclosed. Further, a skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify the transport system to transport a substrate carrier into an out of the cleaning tank with a reasonable expectation of success, as such is a known alternative to transporting individual substrates (B1 Figs.9a-9b).
As to claim 3, Modified Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the transport system is a conveyor system (Brown Fig.7), a walking beam system (Figs.5A-5F), or a running beam system (Figs.6A-6F).
As to claims 6-7, Modified Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the input lid assembly is configured to be actuated to allow a first portion of the top surface to be exposed such that the robot system transporting the substrate carrier may access the inner volume of the cleaning tank (Brown [0037, 0040-0041], see also Figs.4C-4D). Further, the output lid assembly is configured to be actuated to allow a second portion of the top surface to be exposed such that the robot system may access the substrate carrier within the inner volume of the cleaning tank (Brown [0037, 0043], see also Figs.4C-4D).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US20210407824A1) in view of Brown (WO1999017342A1, hereafter B1) and Lee (KR20060114953A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shindo (US5730162A).
As to claim 2, Modified Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the substrate carrier comprises a body (see B1 Fig.9a ref 50a & 50b); a lift handle (B1 ref 370) feature incorporated in an upper portion of the body; and a substrate holder at a bottom inner surface of the body configured to hole the substrate (see B1 Fig.9a refs 50a & 50b also [0021 & 0030-0031] indicating slots for receiving and holding the substrate; thus a skilled artisan would reasonably understand, based on the drawing, that slots are provided on a bottom inner surface of the carrier in order to receive and hold the substrate). However, assuming arguendo that Brown does not explicitly show such a holder, providing holders at the bottom of a carrier for holding the substrate is well-known in the art, as seen by Shindo.
Shindo discloses an art related substrate treating apparatus (abstract), wherein it is shown that a substrate carrier (Fig.2 ref 3) can be provided with grooves (Fig.2 ref 34) on a bottom inner surface of the carrier for holding the substrates (Col.12 lines 20-25) that are to be submersed in a bath (Fig.2 ref 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Brown to provide grooves on the bottom inner surface of the carrier in order to hold the substrates while in the bath, as is well-known in the art (Shindo Col.12 lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US20210407824A1) in view of Brown (WO1999017342A1, hereafter B1) and Lee (KR20060114953A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitazumi (US20080050208A1).
As to claim 4, Modified Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, Brown indicates that a belt conveyor system can be utilized as the transport system (see Fig.7 & [0071-0072]) and isolation gaps exist between the substrates (see B1 Fig.9a). Modified Brown does not disclose the conveyor system having a plurality of belts on opposing sides of the tank. However, the use of two opposing belts for the carrying of a substrate is known in the art, as seen by Kitazumi.
Kitazumi discloses an art related transport system for substrates (abstract & [0003-0005]), wherein it is shown that a transport system for a substrate carrier may utilize two belts (Fig.2 refs 210 & 220) located on opposing sides of the carrier. The use of two belts allows for improved support and vibration management [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Brown to utilize two belts provided on opposing sides of the tank in order to provide improved support and vibration management (Kitazumi [0041]). Further, since isolation gaps are provided between the substrates and the substrate carriers (see B1 Fig.9a), the modification would ensure such gaps are maintained thereby preventing collision of the substrates or the substrate carriers.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US20210407824A1) in view of Brown (WO1999017342A1, hereafter B1) and Lee (KR20060114953A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aust (US20210225677A1) and Kim (KR20220040927A).
As to claim 5, Modified Brown teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the transport system as an electromagnetic coil levitation system with upper and lower tracks to repel a magnet in the carrier utilizing an electromagnetic force. However, Brown indicates that any transport system can be utilized for transporting the substrates through the container [0060]. Further, the use of electromagnetic levitation systems for moving substrate carriers is known in the art, as seen by Aust and Kim.
Aust discloses an art related substrate transfer systems wherein electromagnetic levitation is utilized (abstract & [0001]). Aust further discloses that the electromagnetic levitation transport system utilizes extended coils (refs 150 & 895, see also [0034, 0047, & 0096]) on both sides of the substrate carrier (ref 880) to interact with a magnet (refs 851 & 852) in the substrate carrier, in order to levitate the carrier while transporting said carrier. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the extended coils on each side would read on upper and lower tracks as they are provided to counteract gravity and move the carrier [0090 & 0103].
Kim discloses an art related transfer unit for a wafer (abstract & [0002]), wherein a guide magnetic body (ref 543) is installed on the guide rail (ref 542) to guide the moving direction of the transport body (i.e., carrier; ref 547, see also [0071] and Fig.3). The guide rail defines an upper and lower rail (see Fig.3). A repulsive force is generated between the first floating magnetic body (ref 545) and the second floating magnetic body (ref 548) to lift the transport body in the upward direction (Fig.3 & [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify to utilize an electromagnetic coil levitation track system, as such is a known system for transport of a substrate (Aust abstract & Kim abstract). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known transport system in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success, when it is stated that any transport system can be utilized. Such a modification would provide upper and lower tracks with the coil extending the length of the tank in order to move the substrate the entire length of the tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711