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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply filed 2/5/2026 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 are pending. Claims 3 and 13 are canceled. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn.
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.
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, 7, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102506307 (hereafter ‘307; machine translation referenced hereafter).
Regarding Claim 1: ‘307 teaches a priming system for a substrate cleaning module, comprising: a first diversion valve (Fig. 1, element V1) configured to selectively direct a first flow of a first agent between a dispensing nozzle of the substrate cleaning system (Fig. 1, L1 at element 10) and the priming system; a priming nozzle mechanism coupled with the first diversion valve and comprising a releasing nozzle (not numbered; at element L2 in tank 20); and a separation chamber (element 20) coupled with the priming nozzle mechanism, wherein the priming nozzle mechanism is configured to release the first agent inside the separation chamber, the separation chamber configured to process the first agent.
Though ‘307 does not explicitly teach that the releasing nozzle is configured to mimic dispensing the first agent by the dispensing nozzle, ‘307 teaches that the agent is either dispensed at the dispensing nozzle of the cleaning system, or at the releasing nozzle of the priming system. That is, both nozzles are configured to dispense the cleaning agent at a discharge point. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably expected that the releasing nozzle is configured to mimic the dispensing of the dispensing nozzle.
Regarding Claim 7: ‘307 further teaches wherein the first agent includes a gas or liquid (pg. 2, fourth paragraph).
Regarding Claim 9: ‘307 further teaches the separation chamber comprises a phase separator configured to separate a gas from a liquid (pg. 2).
Regarding Claim 11: ‘307 teaches a cleaning module for cleaning a substrate, comprising: a dispensing nozzle mechanism comprising a dispensing nozzle configured to dispense a first agent toward a substrate disposed inside a processing volume of the cleaning module (Fig. 1, L1 at element 10; pg. 2); a priming system disposed outside the processing volume (at element 20, for example) and configured to release the first agent during a time period when the dispensing nozzle stops dispensing the first agent; and a first diversion valve (element V1) coupled with both the dispensing nozzle mechanism and the priming system and configured to selectively direct a first flow of the first agent, wherein the priming system comprises a releasing nozzle (not numbered, at element L2 in tank 20) coupled with the first diversion valve and a separation chamber (element 20) configured to process the first agent, the releasing nozzle configured to release the first agent inside the separation chamber.
Though ‘307 does not explicitly teach that the releasing nozzle is configured to mimic dispensing the first agent by the dispensing nozzle, ‘307 teaches that the agent is either dispensed at the dispensing nozzle of the cleaning system, or at the releasing nozzle of the priming system. That is, both nozzles are configured to dispense the cleaning agent at a discharge point. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably expected that the releasing nozzle is configured to mimic the dispensing of the dispensing nozzle.
Regarding Claim 17: ‘307 does not expressly disclose nitrogen or an aqueous solution. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The structure of ‘607 is fully capable of directing the flow of nitrogen or an aqueous solution, as both are fluids.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-16, and 18 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest a priming system having the features of the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of KR 102506307 as set forth above. ‘307 does not teach or fairly suggest the priming system having the diversion valve configurations as set forth in claims 2-4, 5, 6, 8, and 12-16. ‘607 does not teach or fairly suggest the features of the separation chamber as required by claims 10 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the reference to KR 102506307 does not teach the releasing nozzle being configured to mimic dispensing the first agent by the dispensing nozzle. However, as noted above, both the releasing nozzle and the dispensing nozzle are configured to discharge the cleaning agent at their respective discharge points depending on the direction by the diversion valve. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended limitation, the releasing nozzle of ‘307 is reasonably expected to be configured to mimic the dispensing operation as claimed.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights