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 claims 8-16 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is indefinite because the term “the at least one substrate cleaner” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rye et al (US 2016/0225656).
As to claim 8:
Rye et al teach a system 20, comprising a cleaning apparatus provided on deck 34 and comprising:
A cleaner 50;
A chuck 110 to support the substrate/wafer 114;
A cleaning nozzle (one of the nozzles 84) to spray a fluid to the chuck.
See at least Figures 1-5, 8-11 and the related description.
A liquid supplier to spray water and a gas supplier to spray a gas are inherent from the disclosure of Rye et al at [0038-39].
In the referenced part of the disclosure Rye et al teach that the nozzles 84 supply liquids, such water, and gases such nitrogen and air.
The claimed nitrogen supplier is inherent since Rye et al teach supplying nitrogen through nozzles 84.
Both claimed nitrogen and carbon dioxide suppliers are inherent since Rye et al teach supplying air (which comprises both nitrogen and carbon dioxide) through nozzles 84.
AS to claim 9:
The claimed substrate mover and its edge chuck are readable on the process robot 44, which engages and moves the chuck 110 in a horizontal direction between the cleaner 50 and other parts of the apparatus. See at least [0033], [0036]. The claimed driver to move the edge chuck is readable on the driver, which moves the process robot 44.
As to claim 11:
The claimed upper plate with a placement hole is readable on the plate with a hole of part 52. The claimed intaker readable on part 62. Shown at least on Figure 2.
Alternatively, the upper plate with the hole is readable on part 112 and the claimed intaker is readable on the part 116. Shown at least on Figure 5.
As to claim 13:
The claimed upper cleaning nozzle is readable at least on one of the nozzles 84.
Positioning of the nozzle 84 upwardly from chuck 110 is shown at least on Figures 10 and 11.
As to claim 14:
The system of Rye et al is disclosed as comprising a cluster module (the module of the apparatuses 42) and a load port 26.
The cleaning apparatus is disclosed as positioned between the cluster module and the load port (at least Figure 1).
As to claim 15:
The apparatuses 42 are disclosed as electroplating (deposition) apparatuses (at least [0022]).
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.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rye et al (US 2016/0225656).
As to claim 16:
The cleaning apparatus is disclosed as comprising multiple cleaners 50.
Each of the cleaners is provided on the support plate 68 (readable on the claimed plate), the referenced plates 68 are disclosed as supported on the deck 34 (which is also readable on the claimed plate).
See at least Figures 1-4 and the description at [0022], [0024].
Thus, Rye et al teach the claimed plurality of the plurality of the plates.
As to the limitation requiring the plates vertically spaced apart:
It is not clear from Rye et al if any spacing provided between plates 68 and the supporting deck 34.
However, it is well known to provided gaskets, pads, elastomeric plates between parts to prevent/reduce vibration caused by moving parts.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide elastomeric plates/pads, gaskets between the plates 68 and the deck 34 in the system of Rye et al to prevent/reduce vibration caused by operating of the moving parts and motors of the cleaner 50.
Such obvious modification will result in the plates 68 and the supporting deck 34 vertically spaced apart from each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 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:
As to claim 10:
The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest an apparatus comprising the chuck driver that includes: a supporter coupled to the edge chuck and movable in the horizontal direction; a guide extending in the horizontal direction and configured to guide movement of the supporter; and a drive motor configured to provide power to move the supporter along the guide together with all other limitations recited by the claim.
As to claim 12:
The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest an apparatus comprising the intaker that includes: a first duct including a first intake port oriented toward the substrate placement hole; a second duct including a second intake port oriented toward the substrate placement hole and spaced apart from the first duct in a first horizontal direction; a main duct spaced apart from each of the first duct and the second duct in a second horizontal direction crossing the first horizontal direction; a first connection duct connecting the first duct and the main duct, the first connection duct extending at an acute angle with respect to the first horizontal direction; and a second connection duct connecting the second duct and the main duct together with all other limitations recited by the claim.
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 systems.
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