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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
acquisition unit (claim 1)
identification unit (claims 1 and 2)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations “acquisition unit that acquires a concentration period” (claim 1, ¶ 2) and “identification unit that identifies objects that were cleaning using a cleaning liquid” (claim 1, ¶ 4) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims (¶¶ [0022, 0025]) and Figure 1 merely illustrate the acquisition unit (100) and identification unit as black boxes connected to a database (200). For example, one skilled in the art would be unable to ascertain whether the acquisition unit and the identification unit are merely lines of code with instructions to interact with a database or a controller with memory and storage.
Claims 1-5 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 limitations “acquisition unit that acquires a concentration period” (claim 1, ¶ 2) and “identification unit that identifies objects that were cleaning using a cleaning liquid” (claim 1, ¶ 4) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims (¶¶ [0022, 0025]) and Figure 1 merely illustrate the acquisition unit (100) and identification unit as black boxes connected to a database (200). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3-5 are indefinite because of their dependence from claims 1 and 2.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s) “an acquisition unit that acquires concentration period information” (¶ 1) and “an identification unit that identifies objects that were cleaned using a cleaning liquid” (¶ 4) which are mental process that can be performed in the human mind such as observing a clock and observing cleaned objects. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of “a database that stores object identification information” (¶ 3) merely generally links the abstract idea to the particular field of use of semiconductor cleaning, and does not, for example, apply the abstract idea by, or with, a particular machine. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because retrieving information from a database in memory are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohira (JP 05-144787 A).
Regarding claim 6, Ohira discloses an object management system (fig. 1), comprising: a liquid quality measurement unit (11a-11d) that measures liquid quality of cleaning liquid used to clean objects (water quality detectors 11a-11d measure water quality of cleaning water; Abstract, Purpose, and Constitution); a regulating valve (12a-12d) that is installed in a flow path that supplies the cleaning liquid to a cleaning tank (shut-off valves 12a-12d are installed in flow paths that supply cleaning liquid to cleaning vessels 1a-1d; fig. 1); and an open/close control unit (10) that controls opening and closing of the regulating valve (12a-12d) based on the liquid quality measured by the liquid quality measurement unit (valve adjusting meter 10 controls opening and closing of valves 12a-12d based on the water quality signal from water quality detectors 11a-11d; Abstract, Constitution).
Regarding claim 8, Ohira discloses wherein the opening/closing control unit (10) opens the regulating valve (12a-12d) when the liquid quality measured by the liquid quality measurement unit (11a-11d) meets a reference value and closes the regulating valve (12a-12d) when the liquid quality measured by the liquid quality measurement unit (11a-11d) does not meet the reference value (when water quality measured by water quality detectors 11a-11d is below a specified value, valves 12a-12d are closed; Abstract, Constitution).
Regarding claim 9, Ohira discloses an object management method that controls supply of a cleaning liquid to a cleaning tank (1a-1d) for cleaning objects (wafers) using a regulating valve (12a-12d) installed in a flow path that supplies the cleaning liquid to the cleaning tank (1a-1d) based on liquid quality of the cleaning liquid for cleaning the objects (valve adjusting meter 10 controls opening and closing of valves 12a-12d based on the water quality signal from water quality detectors 11a-11d; Abstract, Constitution).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (WO 2020/080461 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita et al. discloses a quality management system, comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires concentration period information (water flow period) indicating a period of time during which impurities contained in cleaning liquid for cleaning objects are concentrated by a concentration means (database 320 stores a water flow period is a time period during which impurities in cleaning liquid are concentrated in adsorbent 24 by water flowing through ion adsorption device 20; Machine Translation, ¶¶ [0030, 0048]); a database (320) that stores uniquely assigned concentration means identification (serial number of ion adsorption device 20) and cleaning period information indicating the period during which the objects were cleaned in association with each other as associated information (a database stores a serial number of ion adsorption device 20 and cleaning period information such as when cleaning water flows through flow meter 26, which indicates the period during which the objects were cleaned; ¶¶ [0028, 0048]); and an identification unit that identifies objects (wafers) that were cleaned using a cleaning liquid supplied to the concentration means (20) during the concentration period (wafers with a defect are identified and the water flow period during which cleaning liquid has passed through adsorbent 24 in ion adsorption device 20 is identified; ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita et al. discloses a liquid quality measuring unit (20) that measures an amount of impurities concentrated by the concentration means (24), wherein the identification unit begins identifying the component in which the defect occurred based on the results measured by the liquid quality measurement unit (adsorption device 20 measures an amount of ions in adsorbent 24 and the identification means identifies the system component in which the defect occurred based on the measurement by adsorption device 20; ¶¶ [0021, 0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita et al. discloses wherein the concentration means (24) is supplied with the cleaning liquid that has passed through a non-regenerative ion exchange device (37) provided on a flow path of the cleaning liquid (fig. 4 and ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita et al. discloses wherein the concentration means (24) concentrates metallic impurities (metal ions) as the impurities (¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita et al. discloses wherein the concentration means (24) is a monolithic organic porous material (adsorbent 24 is a monolithic organic porous ion exchanger; ¶ [0021]).
Although Yamashita et al. discloses storing concentration period information (water flow period when cleaning water flows through adsorption device 20), adsorption device identification information (serial number of adsorption device 20), and cleaning period information (time period when cleaning water flows through flow meter 26), Yamashita et al. is silent on storing identification information of a cleaned object (wafer).
However, Yamashita et al. teaches that when a defect occurs in a wafer during manufacturing, the location of the system component in which the defect occurred can be identified by searching the database for which adsorption device was used during the same concentration period (¶ [0031]). After determining the component in which the defect occurred, one of ordinary skill would have conceived of then determining if any other wafers were similarly affected, which would require wafer identification information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Yamashita et al. to further store wafer identification information to allow identification of other affected wafers, thus improving a semiconductor manufacturing system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (WO 2020/080461 A1) in view of Ohira (JP 05-144787 A).
Regarding claim 7, Ohira discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 6.
Although Ohira is silent on the system including an ion exchange device, Ohira teaches the liquid quality measurement is used in cleaning water for a semiconductor manufacturing process.
Yamashita et al. teaches a liquid quality measurement unit (20) measures the liquid quality of the cleaning liquid that has passed through a non-regenerative ion exchange device (37; fig. 4) provided on a flow path of the cleaning liquid (¶ [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Ohira to be used with a non-regenerative ion exchange device as taught in Yamashita et al. to provide ultrapure water for a semiconductor cleaning system (Yamashita et al., ¶ [0036]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852