DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 09/05/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 8-20 are withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the following claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim 5 recites “a controller configured to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the liquid particle counter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this subject matter in the specification.
Claim 7 recites “a controller configured to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the liquid particle counter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this subject matter in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRYER et al. (US Patent 6146468), in view of TANAKA et al. (US PGPUB 20010011548).
Regarding Claim 1, DRYER teaches an apparatus for drying substrates (see abstract, Figs 3-4, col. 5 lines 25-34, col. 10 lines 29-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
743
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DRYER’s apparatus comprising:
a containment tank (tank 26, see Figs. 3-4, col. 5 lines 35-42) having a rinsing liquid region (space below overflow weir 38, see annotated Fig. 3) and a headspace (space above overflow weir 38, see id.); and
a particle detector (particle counter 300, see Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 29-34) comprising: a liquid particle counter (particle counter 300) configured to output information about particles in the liquid (see Fig. 4, particle counter 300 is connected to a controller; see col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
DRYER does not explicitly teach that the particle detector comprising: “an inlet line”; “an outlet line”; “a pump configured to cause the liquid to be drawn from the containment tank into the liquid particle counter through the inlet line and returned to the containment tank through the outlet line”; and wherein the liquid particle counter is “configured to receive a flow of liquid from the containment tank via the inlet line.”
TANAKA teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Figs. 2 & 7, ¶¶ 0063-64, 0084-86) comprising a containment tank (tank 20) and a particle detector (particle counter 50), the particle detector comprising: an inlet line (suction pipe 51, see Figs. 2 & 7); a liquid particle counter (particle counter 50, see Fig. 3, ¶ 0067) configured to receive a flow of liquid from the containment tank via the inlet line (see Figs. 2 & 7, ¶¶ 0064, 0084); an outlet line (discharge pipe 52, see Figs. 2 & 7); and a pump (pump 30, see Figs. 2 & 7, ¶ 0064) configured to cause the liquid to be drawn from the containment tank into the liquid particle counter through the inlet line and returned to the containment tank through the outlet line (see id.). By using an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump, a sample liquid can be taken from the tank to the particle counter for analysis and subsequently returned to the tank (see Figs. 2 & 7), thereby putting the sample liquid to effective use (see ¶ 0018), i.e., the sample liquid is not discarded or wasted.
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 DRYER to incorporate an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump into the particle detector (i.e., DRYER’s particle counter 300), with reasonable expectation of recirculating the sample liquid.
First, by using an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump, a sample liquid can be taken from the tank to the particle counter for analysis and then returned to the tank without wasting the sample liquid. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump into DRYER’s particle counter 300.
Second, it’s well known in the art for a particle detector to have an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump (see TANAKA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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 Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The inlet line, the outlet line, and the pump, as incorporated, would still perform the same function as before (e.g., take sample liquid and return sample liquid), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of DRYER and TANAKA teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches a controller connected to the particle detector (see DRYER at Fig. 4; see also DRYER at col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller is “operable to control the flow of liquid through the particle detector.” But TANAKA teaches a controller operable to control the flow of liquid through the particle detector (see TANAKA at Fig. 3, CPU 60 connected to motor 37; see id. at Figs. 4A-4B, ¶ 0068, motor 37 can be driven at different speeds that affect the speed at which the sample liquid is suctioned and discharged). By adjusting the flow of liquid through the particle detector, the controller can adjust the time of interruption of the measuring operation of the particle counter (see TANAKA at ¶ 0068).
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 DRYER and TANAKA to make the controller operable to control the flow of liquid through the particle detector, with reasonable expectation of adjusting the time of interruption. First, by adjusting the flow of liquid through the particle detector, the controller can adjust the time of interruption of the measuring operation of the particle counter; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to make the controller operable to control the flow of liquid through the particle detector. Second, it’s well known in the art that the controller can be operable to control the flow of liquid through the particle detector (see TANAKA). 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 3, the combination of DRYER and TANAKA teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although the combination does not explicitly teach “a speed control unit operable to control a rate of the flow of liquid,” TANAKA already teaches a speed control unit (motor 37) operable to control a rate of the flow of liquid (see TANAKA at Fig. 3, ¶ 0068). The speed control unit allows for adjusting the time of interruption of the measuring operation of the particle counter (see TANAKA at ¶ 0068).
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 DRYER and TANAKA to incorporate a speed control unit operable to control a rate of the flow of liquid, with reasonable expectation of adjusting the time of interruption. First, the speed control unit allows for adjusting the time of interruption of the measuring operation of the particle counter; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate such speed control unit for DRYER’s particle detector. Second, it’s well known in the art for a particle detector to have a speed control unit operable to control a rate of the flow of liquid (see TANAKA). 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 6, the combination of DRYER and TANAKA teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches a controller connected to the particle detector (see DRYER at Fig. 4), which means the combination teaches or reasonably suggests that the controller is configured to receive information from the liquid particle counter (see DRYER at col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller is “configured to output an alarm based on the information obtained from the liquid particle counter.” But TANAKA already teaches that a controller may be configured to output an alarm based on the information obtained from the liquid particle counter (see TANAKA at ¶¶ 0064, 0072, 0087-88). The alarm notifies the operator that the processing liquid in the tank needs to be replaced (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 DRYER and TANAKA to configure the controller to output an alarm based on the information obtained from the liquid particle counter, with reasonable expectation of alerting the operator. First, by providing the alarm, the operator can be notified to replace the processing liquid in the tank; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to configure the controller to output an alarm based on the information obtained from the liquid particle count. Second, it’s well known in the art to configure the controller to output an alarm based on the information obtained from the liquid particle counter (see TANAKA). 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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRYER et al. (US Patent 6146468), in view of GULDI (US PGPUB 20030034046).
Regarding Claim 1, DRYER teaches an apparatus for drying substrates (see abstract, Figs 3-4, col. 5 lines 25-34, col. 10 lines 29-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
743
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DRYER’s apparatus comprising:
a containment tank (tank 26, see Figs. 3-4, col. 5 lines 35-42) having a rinsing liquid region (space below overflow weir 38, see annotated Fig. 3) and a headspace (space above overflow weir 38, see id.); and
a particle detector (particle counter 300, see Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 29-34) comprising: a liquid particle counter (particle counter 300) configured to output information about particles in the liquid (see Fig. 4, particle counter 300 is connected to a controller; see col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
DRYER does not explicitly teach that the particle detector comprising: “an inlet line”; “an outlet line”; “a pump configured to cause the liquid to be drawn from the containment tank into the liquid particle counter through the inlet line and returned to the containment tank through the outlet line”; and wherein the liquid particle counter is “configured to receive a flow of liquid from the containment tank via the inlet line.”
GULDI teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see Fig. 3, ¶ 0037) comprising a containment tank (tank 34) and a particle detector (see Fig. 3, ¶ 0038), wherein the particle detector comprising: an inlet line (see annotated Fig. 3 below); a liquid particle counter (particle monitor 32) configured to receive a flow of liquid from the containment tank via the inlet line (see Fig. 3, ¶ 0038); an outlet line (see annotated Fig. 3); and a pump (pump 35) configured to cause the liquid to be drawn from the containment tank into the liquid particle counter through the inlet line and returned to the containment tank through the outlet line (see Fig 3, ¶ 0038). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by using an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump, a sample liquid can be taken from the tank to the particle counter for analysis and then returned to the tank without wasting the sample liquid.
PNG
media_image2.png
423
588
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 DRYER to incorporate an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump into the particle detector (i.e., DRYER’s particle counter 300), with reasonable expectation of recirculating the sample liquid.
First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by using an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump, a sample liquid can be taken from the tank to the particle counter for analysis and then returned to the tank without wasting the sample liquid. Given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump into DRYER’s particle counter 300.
Second, it’s well known in the art for a particle detector to have an inlet line, an outlet line, and a pump (see GULDI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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 Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The inlet line, the outlet line, and the pump, as incorporated, would still perform the same function as before (e.g., take sample liquid and return sample liquid), thereby yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of DRYER and GULDI teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the outlet line has a fluid outlet connected to the rinsing liquid region of the containment tank (see annotated Fig. 3 of GULDI above, outlet line is connected to liquid region of the tank).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DRYER and TANAKA (as applied to Claim 1 above), in view of KANG (US PGPUB 20230065080).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of DRYER and TANAKA teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches a controller connected to the particle detector (see DRYER at Fig. 4), which means the combination teaches or reasonably suggests that the controller is configured to receive information from the liquid particle counter (see DRYER at col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller is “configured to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the liquid particle counter.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the particle counter. See KANG at ¶ 0025.
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 DRYER and TANAKA to configure the controller to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the liquid particle counter, with reasonable expectation of analyzing particles. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the particle counter (see KANG). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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 7, the combination of DRYER and TANAKA teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches a controller connected to the particle detector (see DRYER at Fig. 4), which means the combination teaches or reasonably suggests that the controller is configured to receive information from the liquid particle counter (see DRYER at col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller is “configured to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the liquid particle counter.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the particle counter. See KANG at ¶ 0025.
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 DRYER and TANAKA to configure the controller to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the liquid particle counter, with reasonable expectation of analyzing particles. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the particle counter (see KANG). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of DRYER and GULDI (as applied to Claim 1 above), in view of KANG (US PGPUB 20230065080).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of DRYER and GULDI teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches a controller connected to the particle detector (see DRYER at Fig. 4), which means the combination teaches or reasonably suggests that the controller is configured to receive information from the liquid particle counter (see DRYER at col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller is “configured to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the liquid particle counter.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the particle counter. See KANG at ¶ 0025.
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 DRYER and GULDI to configure the controller to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the liquid particle counter, with reasonable expectation of analyzing particles. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on size from the information provided from the particle counter (see KANG). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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 7, the combination of DRYER and GULDI teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination teaches a controller connected to the particle detector (see DRYER at Fig. 4), which means the combination teaches or reasonably suggests that the controller is configured to receive information from the liquid particle counter (see DRYER at col. 12 lines 47-56, particle counter 300 can be used as part of automated control).
The combination does not explicitly teach that the controller is “configured to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the liquid particle counter.” But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the particle counter. See KANG at ¶ 0025.
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 DRYER and GULDI to configure the controller to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the liquid particle counter, with reasonable expectation of analyzing particles. It’s well understood, routine, and conventional for a controller—connected to a particle counter—to be configured to discriminate particles based on shape from the information provided from the particle counter (see KANG). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714