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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 & 21-30 are pending. Claims 11-20 were previously canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (claims 1-10 & 25-30) in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Because Claims 21-24 have been amended to require all limitations of Claim 1, the 05/01/2026 restriction requirement between Species A and Species B is hereby withdrawn. All pending claims (i.e., Claims 1-10 & 21-30) are hereby examined on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 62/772,423, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application:
“engaging a transfer robot with one or more upper handles of the space filling device that extend outward from an upper end of the space filling device” as recited in Claim 2;
“engaging one or more grippers of the transfer robot with one or more holes in the one or more side protrusions” as recited in Claim 4;
“the space filling device includes a surface material selected based on the chemical solution, the surface material including…quartz…” as recited in Claim 29.
Therefore, Claims 2, 4, and 29 are not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of Provisional Application No. 62/772,423.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the language “/890102.475C1,” which should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation is:
“space filling device” in claims 1-10, 21-22, 25, 28-29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“space filling device” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a chamber/container (see Spec. at ¶ 0041), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 21, 25, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,841 (hereinafter “Conflicting Patent”), in view of YOSHIKAWA et al. (US PGPUB 20010020480).
Most of the elements of Claim 1 are found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
1. A method, comprising:
…positioning a space filling device within the tank;
purging the tank using a second chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank…
1. A method, comprising:
positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of a tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the tank and not including semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 1 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches: positioning the space filling device “on a bottom surface of” the tank (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B); the space filling device “contacting the bottom surface of” the tank (see id.); the space filling device “not including semiconductor wafers” (see ¶ 0013, Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B). Additionally, the subject matter of Claim 5 may be found in Claim 4 of the Conflicting Patent.
Most of the elements of Claim 1 are found in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
9. A method, comprising:
… positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of the inner tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the inner tank; and
purging the inner tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the inner tank.
1. A method, comprising:
positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of a tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the tank and not including semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 1 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches the space filling device “not including semiconductor wafers” (see ¶ 0013, Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B).
Additionally, the subject matter of Claim 3 may be found in Claim 15 of the Conflicting Patent; the subject matter of Claim 5 may be found in Claim 13 of the Conflicting Patent; the subject matter of Claim 8 may be found in Claim 11 of the Conflicting Patent; the subject matter of Claim 9 may be found in Claim 11 of the Conflicting Patent; the subject matter of Claim 10 may be found in Claim 11 of the Conflicting Patent.
Most of the elements of Claim 1 are found in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
16. A method, comprising:
…positioning a space filling device within the tank, the space filling device not including semiconductor wafers;
…after cleaning the tank by introducing the second chemical solution into the tank in which the space filling device is present, removing the second chemical solution from the tank and removing the space filling device from the tank.
1. A method, comprising:
positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of a tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the tank and not including semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 1 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches: positioning the space filling device “on a bottom surface of” the tank (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B); the space filling device “contacting the bottom surface of” the tank (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B).
Additionally, the subject matter of Claim 5 may be found in Claim 19 of the Conflicting Patent; the subject matter of Claim 10 may be found in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent.
Most of the elements of Claim 21 are found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
1. A method, comprising:
…removing the first chemical solution from the tank;
cleaning the tank with deionized water;
after the cleaning the tank with the deionized water, positioning a space filling device within the tank;
purging the tank using a second chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank…
21. A method, comprising:
draining a first chemical solution from an interior space of a tank;
cleaning the tank with deionized water;
after cleaning the tank with the deionized water, positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of the tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the tank and not containing semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank with a second chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 21 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches: positioning the space filling device “on a bottom surface of” the tank (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B); the space filling device “contacting the bottom surface of” the tank (see id.); the space filling device “not including semiconductor wafers” (see ¶ 0013, Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B).
Most of the elements of Claim 21 are found in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
16. A method, comprising:
…removing the first chemical solution from the tank …
… cleaning the tank by introducing a deionized water into the tank;
removing the deionized water from the tank;
after removing the deionized water from the tank, positioning a space filling device within the tank, the space filling device not including semiconductor wafers;
…after cleaning the tank by introducing the second chemical solution into the tank in which the space filling device is present, removing the second chemical solution from the tank …
21. A method, comprising:
draining a first chemical solution from an interior space of a tank;
cleaning the tank with deionized water;
after cleaning the tank with the deionized water, positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of the tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the tank and not containing semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank with a second chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 21 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches: positioning the space filling device “on a bottom surface of” the tank (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B); the space filling device “contacting the bottom surface of” the tank (see id.).
Most of the elements of Claim 25 are found in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
1. A method, comprising:
…positioning a space filling device within the tank;
purging the tank using a second chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank…
25. A method, comprising:
positioning a space filling device within an interior space of a tank, the space filling device including one or more bottom protrusion elements that contact a bottom surface of the interior space and support the space filling device in an upright position, the space filling device not containing semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the interior space of the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 25 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches the space filling device including a bottom protrusion element that contact a bottom surface of the interior space (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B) and support the space filling device in an upright position (see id.), the space filling device not containing semiconductor wafers (see ¶ 0013, Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B).
Most of the elements of Claim 25 are found in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
9. A method, comprising:
…positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of the inner tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the inner tank; and
purging the inner tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the inner tank.
25. A method, comprising:
positioning a space filling device within an interior space of a tank, the space filling device including one or more bottom protrusion elements that contact a bottom surface of the interior space and support the space filling device in an upright position, the space filling device not containing semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the interior space of the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 25 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches the space filling device including a bottom protrusion element that support the space filling device in an upright position (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B) and the space filling device not containing semiconductor wafers (see ¶ 0013, Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B). Additionally, the subject matter of Claim 30 may be found in Claim 11 of the Conflicting Patent.
Most of the elements of Claim 25 are found in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
16. A method, comprising:
…positioning a space filling device within the tank, the space filling device not including semiconductor wafers;…
…after cleaning the tank by introducing the second chemical solution into the tank in which the space filling device is present, removing the second chemical solution from the tank and removing the space filling device from the tank.
25. A method, comprising:
positioning a space filling device within an interior space of a tank, the space filling device including one or more bottom protrusion elements that contact a bottom surface of the interior space and support the space filling device in an upright position, the space filling device not containing semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the interior space of the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 25 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 16 of the Conflicting Patent. YOSHIKAWA teaches the space filling device including a bottom protrusion element that contact a bottom surface of the interior space (see Figs. 11A, 26A, 26B) and support the space filling device in an upright position (see id.).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,841 (hereinafter “Conflicting Patent”), in view of LU et al. (US PGPUB 20040134513).
Most of the elements of Claim 21 are found in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent, as shown in the table below (same/similar elements are in boldface):
Conflicting Patent 11,854,841
This Application
9. A method, comprising:
cleaning an inner tank with deionized water;
after the cleaning the inner tank with the deionized water, positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of the inner tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the inner tank; and
purging the inner tank using a chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the inner tank.
21. A method, comprising:
draining a first chemical solution from an interior space of a tank;
cleaning the tank with deionized water;
after cleaning the tank with the deionized water, positioning a space filling device on a bottom surface of the tank, the space filling device contacting the bottom surface of the tank and not containing semiconductor wafers; and
purging the tank with a second chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank.
The differences between the claims are taught/suggested by the prior art, which means the invention defined in Claim 21 would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in Claim 9 of the Conflicting Patent. LU teaches: “draining a first chemical solution from an interior space of a tank” (see step 309 in Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0024, 0026); and the space filling device “not containing semiconductor wafers” (see Figs. 1B, 3, ¶¶ 0021, 0026, claim 16). Additionally, the subject matter of Claim 23 may be found in Claim 11 of the Conflicting Patent.
Claim Objections
In claim 3 line 2, “thank” is a typo; it should be “the tank.”
In claim 6 line 2, the word “remaining” should be inserted between “device” and “within” for consistency with other claims.
In claim 7 line 2, “spacing” is a typo; it should be “space.”
In claim 9 line 3, “spacing” is a typo; it should be “space.”
In claim 23 line 3, “an interior space” should be “the interior space.”
In claim 30 line 3, “an interior space” should be “the interior space.”
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.
Claims 3, 5, and 30 are 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.
In claim 3 line 4, it’s unclear why “sides” is plural, when “side protrusion” can be either singular or plural. If there is only one side protrusion, does the claim require the one side protrusion to extend laterally outward from multiple sides? Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “the inner tank” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “an inner tank.”
Claim 30 recites “the second chemical solution” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because Claim 25 recites “a chemical solution.”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 21-23, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU et al. (US PGPUB 20040134513), in view of IMAI (US Patent 5793833).
Regarding Claim 1, LU teaches a method (see abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 0026).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LU’s method comprising:
positioning a space filling device within a tank (see Figs. 1B, 3, ¶¶ 0021-22, 0024, 0026, positioning a wafer carrier 28 within a tank 20), wherein the space filling device is not including semiconductor wafers (see Figs. 1B, 3, ¶¶ 0021, 0026, wafers are removed from the wafer carrier and the wafer carrier returns to tank 20; see claim 16, the wafer carrier is empty);
purging the tank using a chemical solution (see abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 0026, a bath cleaning solution is supplied into tank 20 and then drained from tank 20) with the space filling device remaining within the tank (see Claim 16, ¶¶ 0021-22, 0024, 0026, Figs. 1B, 3).
LU does not explicitly teach that: the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) is positioned “on a bottom surface” of the tank (tank 20) and “contacting the bottom surface.” But this is still reasonably expected because LU teaches that the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) is submerged in liquid (see Fig. 1B, ¶¶ 0020, 0022, covered by liquid), i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) to fall to the bottom surface of the tank (tank 20) under the influence of gravity.
Alternatively, if LU’s teachings do not clearly envisage the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) positioning on and contacting with the tank’s bottom surface, it still would’ve been obvious to do so. It’s already known in the prior art to position a space filling device (i.e., a wafer carrier) on a bottom surface of a tank and in contact with said bottom surface (see IMAI at Figs. 1-2, wafer carrier 53 contacting bottom surface of tank 8 or tank 13). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could've combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein purging the tank using the chemical solution with the space filling device within the tank (as explained above) further includes fully submerging the space filling device within the chemical solution (see LU at Fig. 1B, ¶ 0022, LU’s wafer carrier 28 is covered by the bath cleaning solution).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein purging the tank using the chemical solution with the space filling device within the tank (as explained above) includes partially submerging the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) within the chemical solution (see LU at Fig. 3, ¶ 0026, in step 305, water is drained and the bath cleaning solution is added into the tank to cover LU’s wafer carrier 28, which means the wafer carrier is partially submerged at one point in time).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein positioning the space filling device on the bottom surface of the tank (as explained above) further includes positioning the space filling device in an inner tank (LU’s main bath portion 20A) of the tank and positioned inward from an outer basin (LU’s overflow stage 20B) of the tank that extends around the inner tank (see LU at Fig. 1B, ¶ 0019).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 8. The combination teaches wherein purging the tank using the chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank (as explained above) further includes filling the inner tank (LU’s main bath portion 20A) in which the space filling device is present (see LU at ¶¶ 0022, 0024, 0026, Figs. 1B, 3).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach “excess of the chemical solution flowing into the outer basin,” such feature is still considered obvious for several reasons. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that overflowing the inner tank helps carry contamination away from the inner tank; given this benefit, one skilled in the art would’ve been motivated to flow excess chemical solution from the inner tank into the outer basin. Second, LU already teaches that excess of DI water flows from the inner tank into the outer basin (see LU at ¶ 0020) and the chemical solution is already supplied to a high level within the tank (see LU at Fig. 1B, ¶ 0022). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein purging the tank using the chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the tank (as explained above) includes: introducing the chemical solution into the tank (see step 305 in Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0022, 0026); and removing the chemical solution from the tank (see step 309 in Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0024, 0026).
Regarding Claim 21, LU teaches a method (see abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 0026).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LU’s method comprising:
draining a first chemical solution (see step 309 in Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0024, 0026) from an interior space of a tank (from tank 20, see Fig. 1B);
cleaning the tank with deionized water (see step 301 in Fig. 3, ¶ 0026, DIW is supplied into tank 20, wherein the DIW would also clean the tank);
after cleaning the tank with the deionized water (after step 301), positioning a space filling device within the tank (see Figs. 1B, 3, ¶¶ 0021-22, 0024, 0026, positioning a wafer carrier 28 within the tank 20), wherein the space filling device is not containing semiconductor wafers (see Figs. 1B, 3, ¶¶ 0021, 0026, wafers are removed from the wafer carrier and the wafer carrier returns to tank 20; see claim 16, the wafer carrier is empty);
purging the tank with a second chemical solution (see abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 0026, a bath cleaning solution is supplied into tank 20 and then drained from tank 20) with the space filling device remaining within the tank (see Claim 16, ¶¶ 0021-22, 0024, 0026, Figs. 1B, 3).
LU does not explicitly teach that: the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) is positioned “on a bottom surface” of the tank (tank 20) and “contacting the bottom surface.” But this is still reasonably expected because LU teaches that the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) is submerged in liquid (see Fig. 1B, ¶¶ 0020, 0022, covered by liquid), i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) to fall to the bottom surface of the tank (tank 20) under the influence of gravity.
Alternatively, if LU’s teachings do not clearly envisage the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) positioning on and contacting with the tank’s bottom surface, it still would’ve been obvious to do so. It’s already known in the prior art to position a space filling device (i.e., a wafer carrier) on a bottom surface of a tank and in contact with said bottom surface (see IMAI at Figs. 1-2, wafer carrier 53 contacting bottom surface of tank 8 or tank 13). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 21. As explained above, the combination teaches that the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) is positioned on (i.e., sinks to) the bottom surface of the tank, which contains the second chemical solution. Therefore, the combination also teaches or suggests that: the space filling device has an overall density higher than the second chemical solution such that at least a portion of the space filling device remains submerged within the second chemical solution.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 21. As explained above, the combination teaches purging the tank with the second chemical solution. The combination also teaches the tank comprises an interior space (LU’s main bath portion 20A) and an outer basin (LU’s overflow stage 20B) that extends around the interior space of the tank (see LU at Fig. 1B, ¶ 0019).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach overflowing a portion of the second chemical solution from said interior space to said outer basin, such feature is still considered obvious for several reasons. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that overflowing the inner space helps carry contamination away from the inner space; given this benefit, one skilled in the art would’ve been motivated to overflow a portion of the second chemical solution from the inner space to the outer basin. Second, LU already teaches overflowing DI water from the inner space to the outer basin (see LU at ¶ 0020) and the chemical solution is already supplied to a high level within the tank (see LU at Fig. 1B, ¶ 0022). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 25, LU teaches a method (see abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 0026).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LU’s method comprising:
positioning a space filling device (wafer carrier 28) within an interior space of a tank (see Figs. 1B, 3, ¶¶ 0021-22, 0024, 0026, positioning wafer carrier 28 within tank 20), wherein the space filling device is not containing semiconductor wafers (see Figs. 1B, 3, ¶¶ 0021, 0026, wafers are removed from the wafer carrier and the wafer carrier returns to tank 20; see claim 16, the wafer carrier is empty);
purging the tank using a chemical solution (see abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 0026, a bath cleaning solution is supplied into and then drained from tank 20) with the space filling device remaining within the interior space of the tank (see Claim 16, ¶¶ 0021-22, 0024, 0026, Figs. 1B, 3).
LU does not explicitly teach that the space filling device (wafer carrier 28) includes “one or more bottom protrusion elements that contact a bottom surface of the interior space and support the space filling device in an upright position.”
But these features are already taught by IMAI. IMAI teaches a space filling device (wafer carrier 53) that includes bottom protrusion elements (see annotated Fig. 3) that contact a bottom surface of the interior space (see Figs. 1-2, wafer carrier 53 contacting bottom surface of tank 8 or tank 13) and support the space filling device in an upright position (see id.).
PNG
media_image2.png
331
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify LU to incorporate bottom protrusion elements on LU’s space filling device (i.e., LU’s wafer carrier 28) and position the space filling device to contact the bottom surface of the interior space of the tank, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device.
First, LU already reasonably suggests that the space filling device (i.e., LU’s wafer carrier 28) is positioned “on a bottom surface” of the tank and “contacting the bottom surface” (as explained above, LU’s wafer carrier 28 is reasonably expected to sink to the tank’s bottom under the influence of gravity).
Second, it’s already known in the prior art that a wafer carrier has one or more bottom protrusion elements that contact a bottom surface of the interior space and support the space filling device in an upright position (see IMAI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
As an alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to substitute LU’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 28) with IMAI’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 53), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, B. Both LU’s space filling device and IMAI’s space filling device serve the same function of carrying wafers, and both need to be cleaned (see LU at ¶ 0007; see IMAI at abstract). Also both LU and IMAI teach immersing their space filling device in a liquid. Thus, substituting LU’s space filling device with IMAI’s space filling device would yield the predictable result of cleaning the space filling device via immersion in a liquid.
As another alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to apply LU’s cleaning method to clean IMAI’s space filling device (i.e., IMAI’s wafer carrier 53), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, C. Both LU’s space filling device and IMAI’s space filling device are wafer carriers that need cleaning (see LU at ¶ 0007; see IMAI at abstract). Also both LU and IMAI teach immersing their space filling device in a liquid. Thus, it would’ve been obvious to apply LU’s cleaning method to clean IMAI’s space filling device (i.e., IMAI’s wafer carrier 53).
In the resulting combination of LU and IMAI: the space filling device would be either LU’s wafer carrier 28 modified to incorporate bottom protrusion elements, or IMAI’s wafer carrier 53 that already have bottom protrusion elements; and such bottom protrusion elements would contact a bottom surface of the interior space (i.e., bottom of LU’s tank 20) and support the space filling device in an upright position.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 25. As explained above, the combination teaches the space filling device including bottom protrusion elements that contact a bottom surface of the interior space. The combination also teaches wherein a bottom surface of the one or more bottom protrusion elements is convex (see annotated Fig. 3 of IMAI above), which is structurally fully capable of reducing a contact area with the bottom surface of the interior space (see id.).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 25. As explained above, the space filling device may be IMAI’s wafer carrier 53.
PNG
media_image3.png
333
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The combination teaches wherein the space filling device (IMAI’s wafer carrier 53) includes a hollow chamber enclosed by an upper portion, a sidewall portion, and a bottom portion of the space filling device (see annotated Fig. 3 of IMAI).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 25. The combination teaches or suggests wherein a height of the one or more bottom protrusion elements facilitates fluidic flow of the chemical solution underneath a bottom portion of the space filling device (see annotated Fig. 3 of IMAI above, the bottom protrusions elevate the bottom surface of the wafer carrier to form a space or gap).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 25. As explained above, the combination teaches purging the tank with the chemical solution. The combination also teaches the tank comprises an interior space (LU’s main bath portion 20A) and an outer basin (LU’s overflow stage 20B) that extends around the interior space of the tank (see LU at Fig. 1B, ¶ 0019).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach overflowing a portion of the chemical solution from said interior space to said outer basin, such feature is still considered obvious for several reasons. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that overflowing the inner space helps carry contamination away from the inner space; given this benefit, one skilled in the art would’ve been motivated to overflow a portion of the chemical solution from the inner space to the outer basin. Second, LU already teaches overflowing DI water from the inner space to the outer basin (see LU at ¶ 0020) and the chemical solution is already supplied to a high level within the tank (see LU at Fig. 1B, ¶ 0022). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LU and IMAI (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of TAKEUCHI (US Patent 5824119).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein positioning the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) on the bottom surface of the tank includes moving the space filling device into position (see LU at ¶¶ 0021, 0026, the wafer carrier returns to tank 20).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) is moved “by engaging a transfer robot with one or more upper handles of the space filling device that extend outward from an upper end of the space filling device.”
But such features are already known in the prior art. TAKEUCHI teaches a space filling device (wafer carrier 10, see Figs. 1A-1C, col. 11 lines 32-41) having upper handles (ridges 14) extending outward from an upper end of the space filling device (see Figs. 1A-1C). TAKEUCHI teaches moving the space filling device (wafer carrier 10) by engaging a transfer robot (carrier robot 24) with said upper handles (see Figs. 3A-3B, col. 13 lines 1-43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the space filling device (i.e., LU’s wafer carrier 28) to incorporate upper handles extending outward from an upper end of the space filling device, with reasonable expectation of engaging a transfer robot with said upper handles. First, the upper handles allow for engagement with a transfer robot, a benefit that would’ve motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the upper handles into the space filling device. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a space filling device to have upper handles that extend outward from an upper end of the space filling device (see TAKEUCHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
As an alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to substitute LU’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 28) with TAKEUCHI’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 10), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, B. Both LU’s space filling device and TAKEUCHI’s space filling device serve the same function of carrying wafers (see LU at ¶ 0007; see TAKEUCHI at col. 11 lines 32-41), wherein each space filling device is suitable for immersion in a liquid (see LU at ¶¶ 0022, 0026, Fig. 1B; see TAKEUCHI at Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3B). Therefore, substituting LU’s space filling device with TAKEUCHI’s space filling device would yield the predictable result of cleaning the space filling device via immersion in a liquid.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cleaning method to incorporate engaging a transfer robot with said upper handles, with reasonable expectation of moving the space filling device. It’s already known in the prior art to move a space filling device by engaging a transfer robot with the upper handles of the space filling device (see TAKEUCHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of LU, IMAI, and TAKEUCHI: the space filling device would be either LU’s wafer carrier 28 modified to incorporate upper handles, or TAKEUCHI’s wafer carrier 10 that already have upper handles; the upper handles would extend outward from an upper end of the space filling device; and the method would comprise moving the space filling device into position by engaging a transfer robot with the upper handles.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein positioning the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) on the bottom surface of the tank includes moving the space filling device into position (see LU at ¶¶ 0021, 0026, the wafer carrier returns to tank 20).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) is moved “by engaging a transfer robot with one or more side protrusions of the space filling device that extend laterally outward from sides of the space filling device.”
But such features are already known in the prior art. TAKEUCHI teaches a space filling device (wafer carrier 10, see Figs. 1A-1C, col. 11 lines 32-41) having side protrusions (ridges 16) that extend laterally outward from sides of the space filling device (see Figs. 1A-1C). TAKEUCHI teaches moving the space filling device (wafer carrier 10) by engaging a transfer robot (carrier robot 24) with said side protrusions (see Figs. 2A-2B, col. 11 line 42-47, col. 11 line 64-67, col. 12 line 48-54).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the space filling device (i.e., LU’s wafer carrier 28) to incorporate side protrusions extending laterally outward from sides of the space filling device, with reasonable expectation of engaging a transfer robot with said side protrusions. First, the side protrusions allow for engagement with a transfer robot, a benefit that would’ve motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the side protrusions into the space filling device. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a space filling device to have side protrusions extending laterally outward from sides of the space filling device (see TAKEUCHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
As an alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to substitute LU’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 28) with TAKEUCHI’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 10), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, B. Both LU’s space filling device and TAKEUCHI’s space filling device serve the same function of carrying wafers (see LU at ¶ 0007; see TAKEUCHI at col. 11 lines 32-41), wherein each space filling device is suitable for immersion in a liquid (see LU at ¶¶ 0022, 0026, Fig. 1B; see TAKEUCHI at Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3B). Therefore, substituting LU’s space filling device with TAKEUCHI’s space filling device would yield the predictable result of cleaning the space filling device via immersion in a liquid.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cleaning method to incorporate engaging a transfer robot with said side protrusions, with reasonable expectation of moving the space filling device. It’s already known in the prior art to move a space filling device by engaging a transfer robot with the side protrusions of the space filling device (see TAKEUCHI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of LU, IMAI, and TAKEUCHI: the space filling device would be either LU’s wafer carrier 28 modified to incorporate side protrusions, or TAKEUCHI’s wafer carrier 10 that already have side protrusions; the side protrusions would extend laterally outward from sides of the space filling device; and the method would comprise moving the space filling device into position by engaging a transfer robot with the side protrusions.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LU and IMAI (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of BHATT et al. (US Patent 6039186).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein positioning the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) on the bottom surface of the tank includes moving the space filling device into position (see LU at ¶¶ 0021, 0026, the wafer carrier returns to tank 20).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28) is moved “by engaging a transfer robot with one or more side protrusions of the space filling device that extend laterally outward from sides of the space filling device.”
But such features are already known in the prior art. BHATT teaches a space filling device (wafer carrier 230, see Figs. 23-28) having a side protrusion (handle 330) that extends laterally outward from a side of the space filling device (see Figs. 23-28). BHATT teaches moving the space filling device (wafer carrier 230) by engaging a transfer robot with said side protrusion (see col. 7 line 10-13, a robot picks up the wafer carrier via handle 330).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the space filling device (i.e., LU’s wafer carrier 28) to incorporate a side protrusion extending laterally outward from a side of the space filling device, with reasonable expectation of engaging a transfer robot with said side protrusion. First, the side protrusion allows for engagement with a transfer robot, a benefit that would’ve motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the side protrusion into the space filling device. Second, it’s already known in the prior art for a space filling device to have a side protrusion extending laterally outward from a side of the space filling device (see BHATT). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
As an alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to substitute LU’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 28) with BHATT’s space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier 230), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, B. Both LU’s space filling device and BHATT’s space filling device serve the same function of carrying wafers. Therefore, substituting LU’s space filling device with BHATT space filling device would yield the predictable result of cleaning the space filling device via immersion in a liquid.
Additionally, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cleaning method to incorporate engaging a transfer robot with said side protrusion, with reasonable expectation of moving the space filling device. It’s already known in the prior art to move a space filling device by engaging a transfer robot with the side protrusion of the space filling device (see BHATT). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of LU, IMAI, and BHATT: the space filling device would be either LU’s wafer carrier 28 modified to incorporate a side protrusion (e.g., BHATT’s handle 330), or BHATT’s wafer carrier 230 that already have a side protrusion (i.e., BHATT’s handle 330); the side protrusion would extend laterally outward from a side of the space filling device; and the method would comprise moving the space filling device into position by engaging a transfer robot with the side protrusion.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of LU, IMAI, and BHATT teaches the method of claim 3. The combination teaches wherein engaging the transfer robot with the side protrusion of the space filling device includes engaging a gripper of the transfer robot with a hole in the side protrusion (see BHATT at Figs. 23-28, col. 7 line 10-13, a robot picks up the wafer carrier via handle 330, which has a hole).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LU and IMAI (as applied to Claim 1), in further view of YOSHIKAWA et al. (US PGPUB 20010020480).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches that cleaning the space filling device (i.e., LU’s wafer carrier 28) involves purging the tank (i.e., LU’s tank 20) using the chemical solution with the space filling device remaining within the inner tank.
The combination does not explicitly teach: after said purging the tank, “removing the space filling device from the tank and cleaning the space filling device.”
YOSHIKAWA teaches a space filling device (wafer pod/carrier 911, see Figs. 26A-26B, ¶ 0013). YOSHIKAWA teaches cleaning the space filling device in a tank (see id., submerging wafer pod/carrier 911 in a liquid in tank 950 or tank 960), removing the space filling device from the tank (see id., removing wafer pod/carrier 911 from tank 950 or 960), and cleaning the space filling device (see id., cleaning wafer pod/carrier 911 with a gas).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of LU and IMAI to incorporate removing the space filling device (i.e., LU’s wafer carrier 28) from the tank (i.e., LU’s tank 20) and cleaning the space filling device, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device. It’s already known in the prior art to remove a space filling device from the tank and clean the space filling device (see YOSHIKAWA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LU and IMAI (as applied to Claim 21), in further view of BEXTEN et al. (US Patent 6322633).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 21. As explained above, the combination teaches purging the tank (LU’s tank 20) with a second chemical solution with the space filling device (LU’s wafer carrier 28 remaining within the tank. In other words, the purging step cleans the tank and the space filling device positioned therein.
The combination does not explicitly teach that said purging step “includes repeating the purging multiple times.” But this feature is already known in the prior art. BEXTEN teaches positioning a target object (reference #125) within a tank (tank 142), and then purging the tank with a chemical solution with the target object still remaining within the tank (see col. 6 line 1-13, filling and draining tank 142). BEXTEN teaches that the purging step is repeated multiple times (see col. 6 line 14-16).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of LU and IMAI to repeat the purging multiple times, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the tank and the space filling device. It’s already known in the prior art to place a target object within a tank (see LU; see BEXTEN), and then purge the tank with a chemical solution while the target object still remains within the tank (see LU; see BEXTEN). It’s also known in the prior art to repeat the purging multiple times (see BEXTEN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LU and IMAI (as applied to Claim 25), in further view of KO et al. (US Patent 5980188).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of LU and IMAI teaches the method of claim 25. The space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier) inherently includes a surface material.
The combination does not explicitly teach that such surface material is “selected based on the chemical solution,” and the surface material includes “one of quartz, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), Teflon, or stainless steel.”
But those features are already known in the prior art. KO teaches a space filling device (a wafer cassette/carrier, see col. 1 lines 14-26) having a surface material selected based on the liquid that contacts with the space filling device (see id., the material is stable in the presence of the liquid), and the surface material includes one of quartz or Teflon (see id.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of LU and IMAI such that the space filling device (i.e., wafer carrier) includes a surface material selected based on the chemical solution, and the surface material includes one of quartz or Teflon, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the space filling device. It’s already known in the prior art for a space filling device to have a surface material selected based on the liquid that contacts with the space filling device, wherein the surface material includes one of quartz or Teflon (see KO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights