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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species 1 (claims 1-4 and 9-15) in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5121549 to Toshiba Corp. (“Toshiba”, and see the attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Toshiba teaches a foreign substance removing method for removing a foreign substance, comprising: forming a first foreign substance trapping film (note ref. 12) between a plate (note ref. 14) and a first region where a foreign substance (note ref. 15) should be removed and separating the plate from the first region together with the first foreign substance trapping film (translation, page 3, para beginning “In the present embodiment” through page 6, para beginning “Next, as shown in FIG. 1E”).
Toshiba does not explicitly teach, after the forming the first foreign substance trapping film, forming a second foreign substance trapping film between the plate that holds the first foreign substance trapping film and a second region where a foreign substance should be removed, and separating the plate from the second region together with the first foreign substance trapping film and the second foreign substance trapping film, wherein the second region is larger than the first region, and a value obtained by dividing a volume of the second foreign substance trapping film by an area of the second region is larger than a value obtained by dividing a volume of the first foreign substance trapping film by an area of the first region. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the steps such that the method includes, after the forming the first foreign substance trapping film, forming a second foreign substance trapping film between the plate that holds the first foreign substance trapping film and a second region where a foreign substance should be removed, and separating the plate from the second region together with the first foreign substance trapping film and the second foreign substance trapping film, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the steps were known as effective for cleaning.
Further, there are only three possibilities with respect to the second region, i.e. it is larger than the first region, it is smaller than the first region, or it is the same size as the first region. Similarly, there are only three possibilities with respect to the value obtained by dividing a volume of the second foreign substance trapping film by an area of the second region (first value) and the value obtained by dividing a volume of the first foreign substance trapping film by an area of the first region (second value), i.e. first value is larger, second value is larger, or the values are the same. Thus, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Toshiba metho wherein the second region is larger than the first region, and a value obtained by dividing a volume of the second foreign substance trapping film by an area of the second region is larger than a value obtained by dividing a volume of the first foreign substance trapping film by an area of the first region, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Toshiba does not explicitly teach the method wherein the volume of the second foreign substance trapping film is decided in accordance with the volume of the first foreign substance trapping film. However, in the absence of a contrary teaching, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the Toshiba method wherein the volume of the second foreign substance trapping film is essentially the same as, or decided in accordance with, the volume of the first foreign substance trapping film, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Toshiba as modified discloses a method, wherein in the forming the first foreign substance trapping film, after a first liquid film is formed between the plate and the first region, the first liquid film is cured, thereby forming the first foreign substance trapping film, and in the forming the second foreign substance trapping film, after a second liquid film is formed between the plate and the second region, the second liquid film is cured, thereby forming the second foreign substance trapping film (translation, page 4, para beginning “Next, as shown in FIG. 1D”).
Regarding claim 4, Toshiba as modified discloses a method wherein
in the forming the first foreign substance trapping film, after the first liquid film is formed between the plate and the first region to trap a first foreign substance on the first region, the first liquid film is cured, thereby forming the first foreign substance trapping film, and in the forming the second foreign substance trapping film, after the second liquid film is formed between the plate and the second region to trap a second foreign substance on the second region, the second liquid film is cured, thereby forming the second foreign substance trapping film (translation, page 4, para beginning “Next, as shown in FIG. 1D”).
Regarding claim 9, Toshiba as modified discloses a method wherein the first region is a region on a surface of a substrate, and the second region is a region on the surface of the substrate (translation, page 3, last para).
Regarding claim 10, Toshiba does not explicitly teach, before the forming the second foreign substance trapping film, forming a third foreign substance trapping film between the plate and a third region where a foreign substance should be removed, and separating the plate from the third region together with the third foreign substance trapping film, wherein the second region is larger than the third region. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the steps such that the method includes, before the forming the second foreign substance trapping film, forming a third foreign substance trapping film between the plate and a third region where a foreign substance should be removed, and separating the plate from the third region together with the third foreign substance trapping film, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the steps were known as effective for cleaning.
Further, there are only three possibilities with respect to the third region, i.e. it is larger than the second region, it is smaller than the second region, or it is the same size as the second region. Thus, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Toshiba method wherein the second region is larger than the third region, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Toshiba does not explicitly teach the method wherein the third region is a region different from the first region. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the modified Toshiba method wherein the third region is a region different from the first region, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to comprehensively clean the substrate. Further, it is noted that there are only two options, i.e. the third region is different than the first region, or the two regions are the same. Thus, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Toshiba method wherein the third region is a region different from the first region, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Toshiba discloses a method wherein the first region is a region on a surface of a substrate, and the second region is a region on a surface of a substrate (translation, page 3, last para), but does not explicitly teach the method wherein the second region is a different region than the first region. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to perform the modified Toshiba method wherein the second region is a region different from the first region, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to comprehensively clean the substrate. Further, it is noted that there are only two options, i.e. the second region is different than the first region, or the two regions are the same. Thus, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Toshiba method wherein the second region is a region different from the first region, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Toshiba does not explicitly teach the method wherein an outermost surface of the second foreign substance trapping film has a planarity higher than an outermost surface formed by a surface of the plate and a surface of the first foreign substance trapping film. However, it can be reasonably expected that an outermost surface of the second foreign substance trapping film will have a planarity higher than an outermost surface formed by a surface of the plate and a surface of the first foreign substance trapping film since the fluid forming the second foreign substance trapping film will tend to level out, while an outermost surface formed by a surface of the plate and a surface of the first foreign substance trapping film will be influenced by respective surfaces of the plate and second foreign substance trapping film. Further it is noted that there are only three options, i.e. an outermost surface of the second foreign substance trapping film has a planarity that is higher, an outermost surface of the second foreign substance trapping film has a planarity that is lower, and an outermost surface of the second foreign substance trapping film has a planarity that is the same.
Regarding claim 14, Toshiba discloses a film forming method comprising: removing a foreign substance on a substrate in accordance with a foreign substance removing method defined in claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis); and forming a film on the substrate that has undergone the removing the foreign substance (translation, page 3, para beginning “The transfer substrate”, page 10, para beginning “The process information”).
Regarding claim 15, Toshiba discloses an article manufacturing method comprising: removing a foreign substance on a substrate in accordance with a foreign substance removing method defined in claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis); forming a film on the substrate that has undergone the removing the foreign substance (translation, page 3, para beginning “The transfer substrate”, page 10, para beginning “The process information”); and processing the substrate that has undergone the forming the film, thereby obtaining an article (translation, page 1, para beginning “The present invention relates” and “In the manufacturing process”, page 5, para beginning “Thereafter, using the photocurable resin”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714