Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 6-8-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
2. The terminal disclaimer filed on 6-8-26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any U.S. Patents related to U.S. Patent Applications 18/889,420 and 19/386,788 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: there are multiple brushes claimed and for clarity it is recommended that the cleaning brush is to be claimed as a first brush and the unused brush is claimed as a second brush. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,647,083 to Sugimoto et al. in view of JP Patent No. 8-318226 to Sato.
Referring to claim 1, Sugimoto et al. discloses a substrate processing device, cleaning a substrate by using a brush, the substrate processing device comprising, a substrate holding part – at 101-104, holding the substrate – at W, in a horizontal posture – see figures 4a-4c, a brush – at 1, cleaning the substrate – at W, held by the substrate holding part – at 101-104 – see figures 4a-4c, a brush holding part – at 74-77, detachably holding the brush – see figures 13-15, an arm – at 71-72, in which the brush holding part is provided at a tip end – see figures 13-15, a brush collection part – at one of items 91, collecting the brush – at 1, from the brush holding part – at 74-77 – see figures 13-15, a brush installation part – others of items 91, storing the brush – at 1, which is an unused brush – see figures 13-15, and installing the unused brush that is stored to the brush holding part – at 74-77 – see figures 13-15 and column 11 line 42 to column 12 line 67, and a brush movement mechanism – at 73,82, moving via the arm – at 71-72, the brush – at 1, among a processing position on the substrate – at W, held by the substrate holding part – at 101-104, the brush collection part – at one of 91, and the brush installation part – at the others of 91 – see figures 13-15 and column 11 line 42 to column 12 line 67. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed substrate holding part items 101-104 of Sugimoto et al. comprise a spin chuck – at 102-104 and rotation drive – at 101 consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush holding part, the parts connecting items 2,4 with item 1 of Sugimoto et al. include a hole part – hole in item 2 and protrusion parts of item 4 and therefore is consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush collection part item 91 of Sugimoto et al. is a collection container consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Regarding the 35 U.S.C 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush installation part items 91 of Sugimoto et al. are accommodation containers consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the brush movement mechanism, items 73,82, of Sugimoto et al. are a revolving driving part and linear actuator/air cylinder consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Sugimoto et al. further discloses the brush movement mechanism – at 73,82, moving, via the arm – at 71,72, the brush – at 1, among a plurality of processing positions, wherein a first processing position of the plurality of processing positions is on the substrate – at W, held by the substrate holding part – at 101-104 – see figures 1-4d, a third processing position of the plurality of processing positions is on the brush collection part – at any of items 91 – see figures 1-2 and 13-15, and a fourth processing position of the plurality of processing positions is on the brush installation part – at any other of items 92 – see figures 1-2 and 13-15. Sugimoto et al. does not disclose a standby pot, configured so that the brush held by the brush holding part standbys in the standby pot the second processing position is on the standby pot and each of the brush collection part and the brush installation part is provided separately from the standby pot. Sato does disclose a standby pot – at 33, configured so that the brush – at 5, held by the brush holding part – at 1, standbys in the standby pot – at 33 – see figure 5, the second processing position is on the standby pot – at 33 – see figure 5, and each of the brush collection part – at any of 26-28, and the brush installation part – at any other of items 26-28, is provided separately from the standby pot – at 33 – see figures 1-5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Sugimoto et al. and add the standby pot of Sato, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing multiple brushes to be moved and used by the device during operation to facilitate cleaning of the substrate and brushes.
Referring to claim 2, Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato further discloses the brush installation part – at two of items 91, comprises a brush accommodation container – at 91, accommodating the unused brush – at 1, in storage – see figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al.
Referring to claim 5, Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato further discloses the brush collection part comprises a brush collection container – at one of 91, that collects the brush – at 1, which is a brush that has been used and removed from the brush holding part – at 74-77 – see figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al.
Referring to claim 6, Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato further discloses the brush collection part comprises a removal member – at 91 and upper surface of 91, for removing the brush – at 1 – see figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the removal member, item 91 of Sugimoto et al. is a container consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 7, Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato further discloses the brush installation part – two of items 91, is provided to be adjacent to the brush collection part – the other of items 91 – see items 91 in figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al.
Referring to claim 8, Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato further discloses a separation part – at TP, provided between the brush collection part – one of items 91, and the brush installation part – the other two of items 91 – see figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al., and separating the brush collection part and the brush installation part – see TP and items 91 in figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed separation part item TP and top of TP of Sugimoto et al. is a wall consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato ‘226 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0213536 to Sato.
Referring to claim 3, Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato ‘226 further discloses a liquid supply part – at SN, supplying a liquid to the brush accommodation container – at 91, wherein the brush accommodation container – at 91, places the unused brush – at 1, proximate the liquid – via SN, that is stored and stores the unused brush – at 1 – see figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al. Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato ‘226 does not disclose the brush is immersed in the liquid. Sato ‘536 does disclose the brush – at 31, is immersed into the liquid – see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0043]-[0045]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato ‘226 and add the brush immersed in the liquid as disclosed by Sato ‘536, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the entire brush is contacted by the cleaning liquid so as to facilitate thorough cleaning of the brush as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed liquid supply part item SN of Sugimoto et al. is a nozzle, pipe connected to a liquid source consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 4, Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato ‘226 and Sato ‘536 further discloses the brush installation part further comprises a movement part – at 92-95, that moves the brush accommodation container – at 91 – see figures 13-15 of Sugimoto et al. Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato ‘226 and Sato ‘536 does not disclose the movement part is a horizontal movement part. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Sugimoto et al. as modified by Sato ‘226 and Sato ‘536 and have the movement part move the accommodation container in any desired manner including the claimed horizontal manner and to make the horizontal movement part a guide rail, electric motor and linear actuator as disclosed by applicant as related to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis of the horizontal movement part, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the brush contacts the cleaning liquid to facilitate a thorough cleaning of the brush as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 9-10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s terminal disclaimer dated 6-8-26 obviates the non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-10 detailed in the last office action dated 2-9-26.
Applicant’s specification amendments, claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 6-8-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 1-10 detailed in the last office action dated 2-9-26.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 6-8-26 obviates the prior art rejections of claims 1-8 detailed in the last office action dated 2-9-26. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 6-8-26 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights