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.
Claims 2, 6-8, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “the sleeve comprises freestanding fibers and/or fiber loops extending in a direction” is indefinite because it is unclear to examiner whether the freestanding fibers and/or fiber loops recited in claim 2 are the same or different than the ones claimed in claim 1. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “the sleeve comprises freestanding fibers and/or fiber loops extending in a direction” to be --the freestanding fibers and/or fiber loops extend in a direction--.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 11-12, and 19, the phrase "preferably", and in the case of claims 6, 12, and 19 also the phrase “such as”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting the claims as follows:
Claim 5: “the freestanding fibers and fiber loops are 1 micron to 200 micron in diameter, preferably 1 to 100 microns in diameter, and more preferably 1 to 10 microns in diameter and extend 0.5 mm to 10 mm in height above the outer surface, preferably 1.0 mm to 7 mm in height above the outer surface of the sleeve, and more preferably 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm in height above the outer surface of the sleeve. “ is being interpreted as --the freestanding fibers and fiber loops are 1 micron to 200 micron in diameter, and extend 0.5 mm to 10 mm in height above the outer surface.--
Claim 6: “the fibers are made of a single polymer or combination of polymers comprising polyester, nylon, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl acetate, or engineered fibers such as poly-para-phenylene terepthalamide, aromatic polyamid, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, preferably, polyester, nylon, and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)” is being interpreted as -- the fibers are made of a single polymer or combination of polymers comprising polyester, nylon, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl acetate, or engineered fibers.--
Claim 7: “the sleeve is 1 per mm2 to 2000 yarns per mm2, preferably 25 per mm2 to 1000 yarns per mm2 , and more preferably 50 per mm2 to 500 yarns per mm2” is being interpreted as -- the sleeve is 1 per mm2 to 2000 yarns per mm2.--
Claim 8: “fiber loop density is 1 per mm2 to 2000 fibers and or fiber loops per mm2, preferably 25 per mm2 to 1000 yarns per mm2 , and more preferably 50 per mm2 to 500 yarns per mm2.” is being interpreted as --fiber loop density is 1 per mm2 to 2000 fibers and or fiber loops per mm2.--
Claim 11: “or some other geometric pattern, preferably nodular or spiral.” is being interpreted as --or some other geometric pattern.--
Claim 12: “the core is made of open cell microporous PVA, polyolefins such as polypropylene, polyurethane preferably polypropylene and PVA” is being interpreted as -- the core is made of open cell microporous PVA, polyolefins.--
Claim 19: “the yarn fibers are polymer fibers made of at least one of polyester, nylon, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl acetate, or engineered fibers such as poly-para-phenylene terepthalamide, aromatic polyamid, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.” Is being interpreted as -- the yarn fibers are polymer fibers made of at least one of polyester, nylon, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl acetate, or engineered fibers.--
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US20110277789) in view of Shoji et al. (US20160229653), hereinafter Shoji.
Regarding claim 1, Benson discloses a composite, cylindrical brush for semiconductor wafer cleaning (Abstract), the brush comprising:
a microporous core (Fig. 8B elements 856b and 800b) having an inner surface (Fig. 8B the surface facing the hollow interior) and an outer surface (Fig. 8B the surface facing element 859b); and
a sleeve (Fig. 8B element 859b) securely positioned on the outer surface of the core (Fig. 8B, 0072), wherein the inner surface of the core is configured to removably connect (0072, where "second porous pad material may be a replaceable sleeve" corresponds to the sleeve being removably connected) onto a mandrel of a wafer cleaning device (Fig. 9 element 992, 0073, where the inner surface of the core is capable of being removably connected to a mandrel (992) and where "cleaning tool" corresponds to a wafer cleaning device), wherein the sleeve comprises a plurality of freestanding fibers (the protrusions shown in Fig. 8B and discussed in 0072 which are similar to element 754 shown in Fig. 7) and/or fiber loops extending above the outer surface of the sleeve (Fig. 8B).
Benson fails to disclose that the sleeve comprises a woven or knitted fabric.
Shoji is also concerned with a cylindrical brush and teaches a sleeve (Fig. 3 element 3) which comprises a woven or knitted fabric (0072, where woven fabric is used) with a plurality of freestanding fibers (Fig. 3 element 4) and/or fiber loops extending above the outer surface of the sleeve (Fig. 3). It 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 to modify the brush of Benson to have the sleeve comprise a woven or knitted fabric, as taught by Shoji, because Shoji teaches that using woven fabric makes it "be possible to achieve a constitution in which scratches, offset defects, and the like tend not to occur" (0037).
Regarding claim 2, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the freestanding fibers and/or fiber loops extend in a direction forming an angle with the outer surface of the core of at least 45 degrees (Benson, Fig. 8B, where any one of the fibers can be taken with reference to one of several points on the outer surface and form an angle of at least 45 degrees (for example, the topmost fiber in relation to the lowermost point on the exterior surface of the core forms an angle of approximately 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 3, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the freestanding fibers and or the fiber loops are extending in a direction normal or substantially normal to the brush surface (Benson, Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 4, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the microporous core is made of a microporous plastic material (Benson, 0114, where "polyvinylalcohol" corresponds to a microporous plastic) or composite plastic material comprising micro-channels (Benson, Fig. 8B elements 850b) and/or open pores (Benson, 0072, where element 856b being "porous" corresponds to the core having open pores) allowing water to flow from the inner surface of the core through the core and out of the outer surface of the core into the sleeve (Benson, 0072).
Regarding claim 5, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the freestanding fibers and fiber loops are 1 micron to 200 micron in diameter (Shoji, 0092), and extend 0.5 mm to 10 mm in height above the outer surface (Shoji, 0099).
Regarding claim 6, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the fibers are made of a single polymer or combination of polymers comprising polyester, nylon, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl acetate, or engineered fibers such as poly-para-phenylene terepthalamide, aromatic polyamid, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (Shoji, 0083, where polyurethane is being used).
Regarding claim 7, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the fiber density of the base of the sleeve is 1 per mm2 to 2000 yarns per mm2 (Shoji, Table 1 on page 16, where based on the information under "Working Example 1" the fiber density is approximately 5.28 yarns/mm^2, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the freestanding fiber and/or fiber loop density is 1 per mm2 to 2000 fibers and or fiber loops per mm2 (Shoji, Table 1 on page 16, where based on the information under "Working Example 1" the fiber density is approximately 5.28 yarns/mm^2, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the fibers and/or fiber loops are arranged in a pattern including linear, circumferential, spiral, arc, nodular, or some other geometric pattern (Benson, Fig. 16, claim 5, where the pattern is a nodular pattern).
Regarding claim 12, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the core is made of open cell microporous PVA, polyolefins (Benson, 0114, where "polyvinylalcohol" corresponds to an open cell microporous PVA).
Regarding “the freestanding fibers and/or fiber loops are formed together with the base of the sleeve on the surface of the sleeve in a single weaving or knitting process”, in accordance to MPEP2112, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
Regarding claim 14, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the core is a fabric made of a polymer (Benson, 0099, where "The base may be any chemically inert polymeric material" corresponds to the core being a fabric made of polymer).
Regarding the polymer being “a melt-blown polymer”, in accordance to MPEP2112, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
Regarding claim 17, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses a sleeve weave density is higher than a core brush density (Benson, 0023, where "by restricting the flow of liquid, the porous pad causes a uniform pressure buildup inside of the distributor" means that the porosity of the sleeve is lower than the core and therefore the sleeve weave density is higher than the core brush density).
Regarding claim 18, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the core has a pore percentage and the sleeve base has a pore percentage, where the core’s pore percentage is higher than the sleeve base pore percentage (Benson, 0023, where "by restricting the flow of liquid, the porous pad causes a uniform pressure buildup inside of the distributor" means that the porosity (i.e. core percentage) of the sleeve is lower than the core).
Benson, as modified, fails to disclose the claimed pore percentage ranges of 60% to 90% for the core and 40 to 70% for the sleeve base. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical. Examiner finds that 0064 of Applicant’s specification states “Higher or lower pore percentages maybe used as long as core porosity is higher than porosity of the sleeve surface” which means that the claimed ranges are not critical. Examiner further finds that the general conditions of the claim (i.e. that the core has a higher pore percentage than the sleeve base pore percentage) are disclosed by Benson, as modified, and therefore examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed ranges to be routine experimentation based on the desired application.
Regarding claim 19, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the yarn fibers are polymer fibers made of at least one of polyester, nylon, polyurethanes, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl acetate, or engineered fibers (Shoji, 0083, where polyurethane is being used).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US20110277789), in view of Shoji et al. (US20160229653), hereinafter Shoji, and in further view of Hu (CN115182081A), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 9, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the sleeve surface contains both single freestanding fibers and fiber loops.
Hu is also concerned with a cylindrical brush and teaches the sleeve surface contains both single freestanding fibers and fiber loops (Fig. 2, 0015, where "closed loops" corresponds to fiber loops and "non-closed loops" corresponds to single freestanding fibers). It 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 to modify the brush of Benson, as modified, to make the sleeve have both single freestanding fibers and fiber loops, as taught by Hu, because Hu teaches that providing both single freestanding fibers and fiber loops provides "water absorption…a good dust removal effect, and does not damage the cleaning items" (0015).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US20110277789), in view of Shoji et al. (US20160229653), hereinafter Shoji, and in further view of Shoji et al. (US10252875), hereinafter Shoji’.
Regarding claim 10, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the sleeve surface contains fiber loops only.
Shoji’ is also concerned with a cylindrical brush and teaches the sleeve surface contains fiber loops only (Abstract). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Benson, as modified, discloses the invention except that the sleeve has single freestanding fibers only instead of fiber loops only. Hu shows that a sleeve having fiber loops only is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both function as a sleeve which is capable of cleaning a surface). Therefore, because these two sleeve types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a sleeve having fiber loops only for a sleeve having single freestanding fibers only.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US20110277789), in view of Shoji et al. (US20160229653), hereinafter Shoji, and in further view of Nedza (US4104170).
Regarding claim 13, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the core is made of a nonwoven polypropylene filter cartridge.
Nedza is also concerned with the material properties of a core and teaches the core is made of a nonwoven polypropylene filter cartridge (2:6-12 and 2:54-64). It 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 to modify the brush of Benson, as modified, to make the core be made of a nonwoven polypropylene filter cartridge, as taught by Nedza, because Nedza teaches that a core made of polypropylene provides "strength to the assembly" and also "has a low degree of flow resistance" (2:54-64).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US20110277789), in view of Shoji et al. (US20160229653), hereinafter Shoji, and in further view of Hockey-Smith et al. (US20040078915), hereinafter Hockey-Smith.
Regarding claim 16, Benson, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, but fails to disclose the loops are Terry fiber loops formed by weaving or knitting together with the base of the sleeve in a single process.
Hockey-Smith is also concerned with a cleaning article and teaches the loops are Terry fiber loops (Fig. 1 elements 12, 0008). It 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 to modify the brush of Benson, as modified, to make the loops be Terry loops, as taught by Hockey-Smith, because Hockey-Smith teaches that having Terry fiber loops provides "the cloth with a very soft characteristic, which enables the fibres to enter very small crevices and so gives the cloth exceptionally efficient cleaning capabilities. Further, the microfibre construction of the terry loop yarn endows the cloth with a greatly enhanced absorbency characteristic" (0008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 15, the closest arts of record, Benson (US20110277789) and Shoji et al. (US10252875), fails to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features: “the brush has a first core flow resistance R1 through the microporous core, a second flow resistance through the base of the sleeve R2, and a third flow resistance R3 across the surface of the loops, and wherein R3<R1<R2”. Examiner finds that Benson discloses having a flow resistance of R1, R2, and R3 (Benson, 0023), but the flow resistance of R3 and R2 would be the same flow resistance and that even with the teaching of Shoji of having fiber loops (Shoji, Abstract), there is no mention of varying flow resistances between the base of the sleeve and the fiber loops and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to adjust the flow restistances of R1, R2, and R3 to meet the claimed relationship without improper hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights