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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-20 are pending. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 2, and 4-10 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 recites the limitation "the substrate cleaning system" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not introduce a substrate cleaning system. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “substrate cleaning module”, since this terminology is introduced in the 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.
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, 5, 7, 9, and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20230005759, machine translation referenced herein), and further in view of Namba et al. (US 2010/0181290) and KR102506307 (machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claim 1: Lee teaches a system for a substrate cleaning module, comprising:
a first diversion valve (element 5) configured to selectively direct a first flow of a first agent between a dispensing nozzle (at element F) of the substrate cleaning system and the priming system (elements 7 and 8);
a priming outlet (between elements 8 and 9) coupled with the first diversion valve, wherein the outlet is configured to maintain characteristics of the first flow of the first agent at the dispensing nozzle (see flow rate control step described on pg. 4); and
a chamber (element 9) coupled with the priming nozzle mechanism, wherein the priming nozzle mechanism is configured to release the first agent inside the chamber.
Lee teaches that the first agent is released into a chamber and can be returned to the cleaning solution generating unit (pg. 7, first full paragraph) but does not expressly disclose a releasing nozzle and a separation chamber that processes the first agent. However, it is known to provide a releasing nozzle at a discharge point of a drainage line, as in Namba (see element 5, [0030]. Further, it is known to process a chemical agent in a separation chamber. For example, ‘307 teaches a separation chamber (element 20) coupled with a nozzle mechanism that releases a chemical agent within the separation chamber, wherein the separation chamber is configured to process the chemical agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee with a nozzle to release the agent into a separation chamber, as in Namba and ‘307 in order to process the agent before returning the agent to be reused.
Regarding Claim 5: Lee further teaches a second diversion valve (element 5’) configured to selectively direct a second flow of a second agent, wherein the priming nozzle mechanism is coupled with the second diversion valve, and the releasing nozzle is configured to dispense the second agent in the separation chamber, the separation chamber configured to process the second agent.
Regarding Claim 7: Lee further teaches the first agent as a liquid (see abstract).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10: Lee, Namba, and ‘307 teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. ‘307 is cited for teaching the separation chamber as a phase separator to separate gas from liquid and having a liquid outlet (element 130) and a gas outlet (element 140).
Regarding Claim 11: Lee teaches a cleaning module for cleaning a substrate, comprising: a dispensing nozzle mechanism comprising a dispensing nozzle (et element F) configured to dispense a first agent (element F) toward a substrate (element S) disposed inside a processing volume (element 4) of the cleaning module;
a priming system (elements 7 and 8) disposed outside the processing volume and configured to release the first agent during a time period when the dispensing nozzle stops dispensing the first agent (see abstract); and
a first diversion valve (element 5) 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 outlet (between elements 8 and 9) coupled with the first diversion valve and a chamber (element 9) configured to receive the first agent, the releasing outlet configured to release the first agent inside the chamber, wherein the releasing outlet is configured to maintain characteristics of the first flow of the first agent at the dispensing nozzle (see flow rate control step described on pg. 4).
Lee teaches that the first agent is released into a chamber and can be returned to the cleaning solution generating unit (pg. 7, first full paragraph) but does not expressly disclose a releasing nozzle and a separation chamber that processes the first agent. However, it is known to provide a releasing nozzle at a discharge point of a drainage line, as in Namba (see element 5, [0030]. Further, it is known to process a chemical agent in a separation chamber. For example, ‘307 teaches a separation chamber (element 20) coupled with a nozzle mechanism that releases a chemical agent within the separation chamber, wherein the separation chamber is configured to process the chemical agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee with a nozzle to release the agent into a separation chamber, as in Namba and ‘307 in order to process the agent before returning the agent to be reused.
Regarding Claim 14: Lee further teaches a second diversion valve (element 5’) configured to selectively direct a second flow of a second agent, wherein the priming nozzle mechanism is coupled with the second diversion valve, and the releasing nozzle is configured to dispense the second agent in the separation chamber, the separation chamber configured to process the second agent.
Regarding Claim 17: The prior art teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. Lee teaches the agent is a cleaning solution but does not expressly disclose 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 Lee is fully capable of delivering an aqueous solution as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18: Lee, Namba, and ‘307 teach the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. ‘307 is cited for teaching the separation chamber as a phase separator to separate gas from liquid and having a liquid outlet (element 130) and a gas outlet (element 140).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 15, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest the features of these claims. The closest prior art of record is that of Lee as cited above. However, Lee does not teach the elements of the diversion valves that are required in these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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