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 .
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.
Claim 11-14 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 11 includes limitations directed to “a pad”. This is confusing since the pad is already defined in claim 1. It appears claim 11 should be amended to read “the pad” since there is not a second pad disclosed in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson (PGPub 20190233966) in view of Bradley (USPN 12502693).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Hanson teaches a cleaning apparatus for semiconductor equipment, the apparatus comprising: a cleaning head (300) having an attachment configured for removing contamination off an electroplating seal, the attachment comprising: a base (310); a first protrusion (320) located on a first side of the base; and a second protrusion (322) located on a second side of the base opposite the first side, wherein the second protrusion comprises a flat portion (see annotated figure 1 below) and a sloped portion (326a-c), wherein the second protrusion is configured to push an apex of the electroplating seal, and wherein the apex of the electroplating seal is configured for rotationally sliding along the second protrusion (the cleaning apparatus is the only thing being claimed; therefore, how it is to be used is considered intended use and as long as the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim). There are base holes (figure 8, element 326) and cavity formed between the first and second protrusion. Wherein an elastomer seal contacts the pad, the pad is pushed into the cavity as air moves through the base holes (the semi-conductor equipment is not positively claimed; the cleaning apparatus is the only thing actually being claimed; therefore how it is to be used is considered intended use and as long as the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Hanson teaches all the essential elements however fails to teach a pad secured to the first and second protrusion (claim 1 and 11). Bradley teaches a cleaning apparatus comprising a base (216) with a first and second protrusion (208). There is a pad (302) that is secured on the first and second protrusion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanson so that there is a pad on the first and second protrusion as taught by Bradley to allow for better cleaning of the electroplated seal.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With regards to claim 3, the second protrusion extends beyond the base (figure 8 shows how the base is extending upward and the protrusions are extending from the base at a 90 degree angle).
With regards to claim 4, the flat portion is a first flat portion and the sloped portion is a first sloped portion, wherein the second protrusion further comprises a second flat portion and a second sloped portion, and wherein the first flat portion and the second flat portion are separated by the second sloped portion (see annotated figure 1 below).
With regards to claim 5, the sloped portion is a first sloped portion and the second protrusion further comprises a second sloped portion that is separated from the first sloped portion by the flat portion (see annotated figure 1 below).
With regards to claim 6, the attachment further comprises one or more base cutouts (318) configured for increasing a lifetime of a pad (pad is not positively claimed and therefore, holds no patentable weight).
With regards to claim 7, the cleaning head further comprises one or more cleaning head holes configured to couple the cleaning head to a swinging arm (see annotated figure 2 below).
With regards to claim 10, there is a swinging arm (305) configured for holding the cleaning head in contact with the electroplating seal.
PNG
media_image1.png
559
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
403
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 12, the cleaning head exerts a radial force onto an outer surface of the electroplating seal and an upward force onto the apex of the electroplating seal (the seal is not positively claimed; the cleaning head is the only thing that is positively claimed and therefore, any limitations regarding how the cleaning head is used is considered intended use; the prior art of Hanson is capable of exerting a radial force on an outer surface of a seal and an upward force onto an apex of the seal is used in the intended manner).
With regards to claim 13 and 14, the swinging arm is configured to bend when the second protrusion pushes the apex of the electroplating seal and a bending offset of the swinging arm exerts an upward force onto the pad. This is again intended use. If the device is Hanson was used in the manner as claimed, it is clear that it would perform the intended use, since it has all the structural elements of the claim.
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hanson (‘966) in view of Bradley (‘693)
Hanson and Bradley teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the sloped portion has an offset from the flat portion of about 0.1 mm to about 3 mm (claim 8) and that the end of the protrusion has an offset height of about 0.1 mm to about 1 mm (claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanson so that the sloped portion has an offset from the flat portion in the claimed range and the end of the protrusion has an offset height in the claimed range since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. A device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and therefore the claimed device is not patentable. Further, the applicant does not disclosed that offsets provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant amended the claim to include limitations regarding a pad, base holes and a cavity. These limitations were found in the previous prior arts but were not previously used to reject claim 1.
The applicant argues a hypothetical rejection (which the examiner made above) stating that the references do not teach base holes, a cavity and as an elastomer seal contacts the pad, the pad is pushed into the cavity and air moves thru the holes In response, Hanson does in fact teach base holes as shown in figure 8. The base holes are located in a cavity between the first and second protrusion. The Bradley reference teaches using a pad. The combination of Hanson and Bradley thus read on the all the claim limitations. The limitation that when an elastomer seal contacts the pad, the pad is pushed into the cavity and air moves thru the holes. As stated above in the rejection, only the cleaning apparatus is positively claimed. Any limitations directed to how it is used it intended use. The applicant has not positively recited any semiconductor equipment such as an electroplating seal or an elastomer seal. Thus this limitation is not given any patentable weight.
It is suggested to the applicant to further define the flat and sloped portion of the second protrusion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights