Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
3. 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 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/889,420 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of the ‘420 application are substantially similar to claims 1-10 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 19/386,788 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 of the ‘788 application are substantially similar to claims 1-10 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed substrate holding part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the substrate holding part is detailed as a spin chuck and a rotation driving part being an electric motor as detailed in paragraphs [0032]-[0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush holding part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the brush holding part is detailed as a hole part, formed in a cylindrically columnar shape along a central axis extending vertically; three opening parts, provided on a sidewall on an inner side of the hole part and provided about the central axis; three protrusion parts, respectively protruding from the three opening parts toward the hole part; and a biasing part, provided on an outer side of the three protrusion parts, and biasing the three protrusion parts in a direction of the central axis, the three protrusion parts can be steel balls and ball accommodation parts, a guide holding part and two recesses as seen in paragraphs [0026], [0041], [0102], [0127], [0129]-[0130] of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush collection part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0058]-[0061] of applicant’s originally filed specification the brush collection part is detailed as a removal member having a foundation portion and two hooked portions formed in a U or forked shape and a brush collection member being a brush collection container. Further, applicant invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush installation part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0062]-[0067], the brush installation part is detailed as a brush accommodation container which can have a shallow tray shape and can have a guide such as a recess and a liquid discharge container that surrounds the brush accommodation container. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush movement mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0040], [0072]-[0075], [0108]-[0120] and [0133], the brush movement mechanism is detailed as a lifting mechanism and a revolving driving part, and a brush placement part, a pusher, a lifting part, and a horizontal movement part (linear actuator having a rod and electric motor or air cylinder).
Regarding claim 3, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed liquid supply part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0036] and [0064] of applicant’s originally filed specification the liquid supply part is detailed as a nozzle, supply pipe, supply source and a valve.
Regarding claim 4, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed horizontal movement part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0028]-[0029], [0090]-[0094] and [0109]-[0116] of applicant’s originally filed specification the horizontal movement part is detailed as a protrusion part movable in a recess and a slider, a guide rail, a screw shaft, and an electric motor and a linear actuator having a rod and electric motor or air cylinder.
Regarding claim 6, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed removal member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0058]-[0061] of applicant’s originally filed specification the removal member is detailed as a foundation portion and two hooked portions formed in a U or forked shape and a brush collection member being a brush collection container.
Regarding claim 8, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed separation part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and [0139] of applicant’s originally filed specification the separation part is detailed as a sidewall(s) and a wall having a plate shape.
Regarding claim 9, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed hole part, the three opening parts, the three protrusion parts and the cylindrically columnar part in that applicant has not claimed any associated functional language with respect to these claimed elements. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed biasing part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0045]-[0046] of applicant’s originally filed specification the biasing part is detailed as a cylindrical case part, a pressing part and a spring member/elastic member in a cylindrical shape. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush support part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0028] and [0098]-[0103] of applicant’s originally filed specification the brush support part is detailed as a guide, an opening part, a protrusion part, a button part and a protrusion width adjustment mechanism.
Regarding claim 10, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush support part in that applicant claims structure related to the brush support part being the claimed guide, opening part, protrusion part, button part and protrusion width adjustment mechanism. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed opening part and protrusion part since no related functional language is claimed for these claimed components. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed button part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in figures 10a-10b of applicant’s originally filed disclosure the button part is detailed as the structure of item 141 as seen for example in applicant’s drawing figures 10a-10b. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed protrusion width adjustment mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in paragraphs [0028] and [0106] of applicant’s originally filed specification the protrusion width adjustment mechanism is detailed as an elastic member and cam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed substrate holding part as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action and as seen in paragraphs [0032]-[0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification the substrate holding part is detailed as a spin chuck and electric motor and as seen in paragraph [0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification the spin chuck is detailed as, as shown in FIG. 2, the spin chuck 11 includes a spin base 15 and three or more (six, for example) holding pins 17. The spin base 15 is formed in a disc shape. The vertical axis AX1 passes through the center of the spin base 15 (i.e., the substrate W). The six holding pins 17 are erected at equal intervals on an edge part of the upper surface of the spin base 15. In addition,
among the six holding pins 17, each of three holding pins 17A provided on a side, for example,
rotates about a vertical axis that passes through itself. Accordingly, the spin chuck 11 holds the
substrate W by sandwiching the edge of the substrate W by using the six holding pins 17. In
addition to being a mechanical chuck described herein, the spin chuck 11 may also be a vacuum
chuck or an electrostatic chuck, and the phrase “for example” detailed twice in this passage renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structural features of the substrate holding part other than those detailed in this passage are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush holding part as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action and as seen in paragraph [0127] of applicant’s originally filed specification the brush holding part is detailed as the brush holding part 27 includes three steel balls 57, the biasing part 61, etc., and the brush 25 includes the cylindrically columnar part 73. Regarding this point, as shown in FIG. 15, it may also be that the brush holding part 27 includes the cylindrically columnar part 73 having the recess 75 and the longitudinal recess 77. In addition, the brush 25 may also include three steel balls 57 and the biasing part 61, and the term “etc.” in this passage renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structural features than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush installation part and as seen in paragraph [0063] of applicant’s originally filed specification the brush installation part is detailed as the brush installation part 81 stores one or multiple (e.g., 3) unused brushes 25B and the term “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other sizes of the brush installation part are being contemplated. Further, as seen in paragraph [0065] of applicant’s originally filed specification the brush installation part is detailed as the bottom of the brush accommodation container 91
is formed in a shallow tray shape, for example, and the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures than those disclosed for the brush installation part are being contemplated by the claim. Further, as seen in paragraph [0067] of applicant’s originally filed specification the brush installation part is detailed as in the brush
accommodation container 91, a guide, such as a recess, is provided, for example, so as to store
each of the unused brushes 25B at a position set in advance, then the phrases “such as” and “for example” in this passage renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structures than those disclosed for the brush installation part are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed brush movement mechanism as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action and the brush movement mechanism is detailed as a brush placement part, a pusher, a lifting part, and a horizontal movement part (linear actuator having a rod and electric motor or air cylinder) in applicant’s originally filed specification and there isn’t specific structure detailing the lifting part brush placement part so it is unclear to what structures encompass these components of the brush movement mechanism. Further, it is unclear to whether the brush detailed in line 8 of claim 1 is the same or different than the brush detailed in line 4 of claim 1 in that in line 8 of claim 1 the brush is detailed as an unused brush and in line 4 of claim 1 the brush appears to be a brush in use. Further, in the last three lines of claim 1 it is unclear to whether the brush collection part and the brush installation part hold the substrate.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the liquid that is stored" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 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. It is unclear from what the brush has been removed from.
Claim 8 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the separation part as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action and as seen in paragraph [0139] of applicant’s originally filed specification the separation part is detailed as the separation part is not limited to be a portion of the container. For example, a separation wall (e.g., having a plate shape) may also be provided as the separation part between the brush collection part 79 and the brush installation part 81, and the phrase “for example” and term “e.g.” each renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other structural features of the separation part are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,647,083 to Sugimoto et al.
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.
Referring to claim 2, Sugimoto et al. 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.
Referring to claim 5, Sugimoto et al. 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 – see figures 13-15.
Referring to claim 6, Sugimoto et al. 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. 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. 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.
Referring to claim 8, Sugimoto et al. 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, and separating the brush collection part and the brush installation part – see TP and items 91 in figures 13-15. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. 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. 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. Sugimoto et al. does not disclose the brush is immersed in the liquid. Sato 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. and add the brush immersed in the liquid as disclosed by Sato, 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 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 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 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
8. Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to substrate cleaning devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,935,981 to Ohtani et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,291 to Tateyama et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,860,178 to Nishimura et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,158,075 to Tanaka et al. – show substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,284 to Tseng et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,652,662 to Ishibara et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,91,3346 to Iwami et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 9,711,381 to Ko et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,256,120 to Sakata et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
10. 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