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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. [PG. Pub. No.: US 2024/0290665 A1].
The applied reference has a common INVENTORS AND APPLICANT with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With regards to claim 1, Takahashi discloses a method of measuring a contact angle of a silicon wafer (ABSTRACT), the method comprising: dripping a droplet on a surface of a silicon wafer (¶0068); and measuring a contact angle of the surface of the silicon wafer from an image of the droplet (¶0071), wherein the droplet is composed of an aqueous solution having a surface tension greater than a surface tension of pure water (¶0068).
With regards to claim 2, Takahashi discloses the aqueous solution is at least one selected from the group consisting of a sodium chloride solution, a potassium chloride solution, and a magnesium chloride solution (¶0036).
With regards to claim 3, Takahashi discloses the aqueous solution has a concentration of 10 mass % or more (¶0037).
With regards to claim 4, Takahashi discloses a volume of the droplet is in a range of 0.3 μL to 3.0 μL (¶0038).
With regards to claim 5, Takahashi discloses the contact angle is measured in an environment with a humidity in a range of 30% RH to 70% RH (30% RH to 50% RH, ¶0079).
With regards to claim 6, Takahashi discloses measuring the contact angle of the surface of the silicon wafer under a plurality of conditions in which a volume of a droplet dripped on the surface differs and determining a relationship between the volumes of the droplet and measured values of the contact angle under the plurality of conditions (¶0028-0029).
With regards to claim 7, Takahashi discloses the volume of the droplet is measured from the image of the droplet (¶0034).
With regards to claim 8, Takahashi discloses the silicon wafer includes a surface layer that is an oxide film, and the oxide film forms the surface (¶0065).
With regards to claim 9, Takahashi discloses the oxide film is a natural oxide film (¶0065).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
With regards to claim 10, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed a method of evaluating a surface condition of a silicon wafer, the method comprising: the method of measuring a contact angle of a silicon wafer according to claim 1; and evaluating a surface condition of the silicon wafer based on a value of the measured contact angle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS C GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/FRANCIS C GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852