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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, & 8-10 are pending on the application all of which are amended, and claims 2, 4, & 7 are cancelled.
In light of the amendments, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s argument directed towards the Xiong reference (i.e., “… single wafer…”) is not found persuasive, because although Xiong may be directed towards a single wafer, it does not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from applying the same mechanism to a rod having a plurality of wafers. Further, it would be simple and routine for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the speed detection system to a rod holding a plurality of wafers. Secondly, applicant’s argument towards the limitations recited in page 15 of the remarks are already address implicitly within the action (i.e., the length of the driving shaft merely providing an obvious change in size). If applicant can show the claimed size/proportions result in operation different from the operation of the prior art, commensurate in scope with the claims, then examiner would withdraw the rejection. Applicant’s argument towards the last limitation in page 15 of the remarks (i.e., “suspended… drive unit”) is not persuasive because applicant does not specifically point out why the references fail to meet such a limitation. Examiner of the position that such limitations are met by the references (see rejection below).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new references utilized to meet the new limitations (i.e., the side surfaces being in contact with the plurality of wafers).
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the Choi reference is moot, as the reference is no longer utilized. Similarly, applicant’s remarks directed towards the Martinez reference for the citation of a driven shaft are also moot as such citation is no longer utilized.
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, 3, 5-6, & 8-10 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.
In claim 1 applicant states “a plurality of wafer…the at least two second clamping grooves” and “edges of the plurality of the wafers fall into the at least two limiting grooves”, such phrases are unclear because it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim multiple wafers provided in each groove or not. Based on the disclosure (see Figs.3-8) it appears that each of a plurality of wafers is provided in a clamping groove the first and second shaft as well as the limiting groove of the driven shaft and will be interpreted as such for examination purposes.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US6337030B1) in view of Manos (US5672212A), Cui (CN107706144A), Uehara (US6767840B1) and Brown (US20050109373A1).
As to claim 1, Sakaguchi discloses an ultrasonic cleaning device for cleaning wafers (abstract). The ultrasonic frequency is within 1 MHz (see “example “ and “example 2”), which one of ordinary skill in the art understands is a megasonic range. Thus, the device reads on a megasonic cleaning device. The device comprises a cleaning tank with cleaning liquid (ref 10 and Col.4 lines 35-40) and a megasonic source (ref 31); a first driving shaft and second driving shaft (ref 11) arranged in parallel with each other in the cleaning tank (see Figs.1 & 3) and are capable of rotating circumferentially about their own center axes (see Figs.4-5) under via a drive unit (ref 19); at least two clamping grooves are provided on each of the first and second driving shafts in a length direction (see Figs.1 & 3 ref 11a) arranged corresponding to each other; a plurality of wafers (ref 40) are respectively placed by means of the cooperation of the first and second clamping grooves (see Figs.1 & 3), and the first and second driving shafts are located on two sides of a center axis of the wafers (see Fig.4); the first and second driving shaft rotate in the same direction (Col.6 lines 1-2 & Fig.4) and rotate the plurality of wafers via friction (Col.4 lines 30-35 & Col.5 lines 18-20); wherein the one end of the driving shaft is connected to the drive unit via a connected rod and cranks (Sakaguchi Figs.1 & 5 refs 15-17) and the other end is suspended in the tank via a support (see Fig.1 ref 18). Sakaguchi does not disclose the megasonic source in the bath, however such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Manos. Sakaguchi also does not disclose a driven shaft with at least two limiting grooves located in a same vertical plane as the first and second clamping grooves. However, Sakaguchi does disclose that the wafer rotating mechanism can be different (Col.6 lines 20-25). Further, the use of a driven shaft is known in the art, as seen by Cui.
Manos discloses an art related cleaning for a plurality of wafers (abstract & Fig.1), wherein it is shown that a megasonic transducer (Fig.5 ref 23) can be provided within a tank (ref 15) that holds the plurality of wafers (ref 13). Thus, Manos discloses that another known location for a megasonic source is within the tank.
Cui discloses an art related wafer cleaning device (abstract), wherein driven shafts (refs 20c & 20d) are provided with grooves in a same vertical plane as grooves of driving shafts (see Fig.3 refs 21c & 21d in comparison to refs 21a and 21b) and edges of the wafers are provided within grooves (see Fig.3). By utilizing driven shafts the driving shafts can more easily rotate wafers [0038 & 0048]. Cui also indicates that the slot width decreases towards the bottom [0060-0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sakaguchi to provide the megasonic transducer within the tank, as such is a known alternative location for a megasonic transducer (Manos Fig.5 ref 23). Such a modification would also provide the adjusting mechanism (see Sakaguchi ref 32) with the megasonic transducer in the tank to allow for optimization of the megasonic waves. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known location for a megasonic transducer in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to modify Sakaguchi to utilize driven shafts as the bottom shaft instead of driving shafts in order to bear more of the weight and allow for easier rotation by the driving shafts (Cui [0048]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known rotation mechanism in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Sakaguchi does not clearly indicate the feature of having grooves whose configuration is such that a gap is provided between a bottom of the wafer and the bottom of the groove, while the wafer touches sidewalls of the groove. However, such a groove construction is known in the art, as seen by Uehara and Brown.
Uehara discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to provide a rotating rod (ref 53) which holds wafers (ref 40) with grooves (e.g., see Figs.6B & 7B) which have sidewalls which contact the wafer, while a gap is provided between the bottom of the groove and the wafer bottom (see Figs.6B & 7B). Such a groove configuration for holding the wafers prevents slippage (Col.7 lines 20-33).
Brown discloses an art related substrate treating apparatus [0002], and particularly a roller which prevent slipping (abstract), wherein it is known that allowing for contact between the sidewalls of the wafer and a holding groove of the roller prevent slippage [0031 & 0037]. Brown also shows that the substrate bottom has a gap from the groove bottom (see Figs.1A-1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the groove construction such that sidewalls of the groove contact the wafer while a gap is maintained at the bottom in order to prevent slippage (Uehara Col.7 lines 20-33 & Brown [0031 & 0037]).
The remaining difference between Modified Sakaguchi and the invention of claim 1 is the driving shafts having a length of 60-350mm. However, the limitation of the shafts having an axial length of 60-350 mm merely represents a change in the size/proportion of the driving shafts and a skilled artisan would not expect a device with the claimed dimensions to operate differently from the of Modified Sakaguchi (see MPEP 2144.04). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide any desired shaft length to accommodate any number of substrates and fit within a complimentary sized tank.
As to claim 3, Modified Sakaguchi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the driven shaft is located under the wafers and deviated from the center axis of the wafers.
As to claim 6, Modified Sakaguchi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the rotation speeds of the first and second shafts are the same (Sakaguchi Col.6 lines 1-2).
As to claim 8, Modified Sakaguchi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the limitation does not require the driven shafts bodies to be separate. Thus, the driven shaft has a first shaft body and second shaft body (e.g., left/right halves of the shaft) that are coaxially arranged. Similarly since the claim limitation does not require the ends of the shafts being suspended freely in the air, indirect suspension of the ends via the other ends of the shaft reads on the claim. Thus, adjacent ends are suspended via the end connections of the shaft to a support (e.g., see Cui Fig.3 ref 10).
As to claims 9-10, Modified Sakaguchi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first and second shafts have left and right ends (see Sakaguchi Fig.1, thereby defining left and right shaft bodies) that are coaxial and rotate via the drive unit (see Sakaguchi Figs. 1 & 4-5). With respect to the limitation of the rotation speeds being different, the limitation does not require that the speeds are different contemporaneously. Thus, such a limitation is met as the shaft will undergo different rotational speeds from startup to steady-state operation and from steady-state operation to shut down.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US6337030B1) in view of Manos (US5672212A), Cui (CN107706144A), Uehara (US6767840B1) and Brown (US20050109373A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong (CN106684021A).
As to claim 5, Modified Sakaguchi teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of a rotation speed detection unit located externally to the driven shaft, however such a feature is known in the art as seen by Xiong.
Xiong discloses an art related wafer rotation device for megasonic cleaning operations (abstract), a driven wheel assembly (ref 7) is provided which rotates based on contact with the wafer ([0027 & 0045]) which is driven via the driving shaft (refs 4 & 6). The driven assembly is provided with a rotational speed detection device (ref 16) in order to determine the rotational speed of the wafers [0045]. The speed detection of the driven shaft ensures that the wafers rotate at a constant speed to improve efficiency and quality [0006-0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Sakaguchi to provide a speed sensor to an external portion of the driven shaft in order to detect wafer speed and ensures that the wafers rotate at a constant speed to improve efficiency and quality (Xiong [0006-0007]).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (US20090320875A1) in view of Cui (CN107706144A), Uehara (US6767840B1) and Brown (US20050109373A1).
As to claim 1, Martinez discloses an apparatus for megasonic cleaning of a plurality of substrates (abstract) including wafers [0008], comprising: a cleaning tank (ref 146) with cleaning liquid (see [0035 & 0037] and ref 214) and a megasonic source (ref 218) located therein; a first driving shaft and second driving shaft (refs 202 & 204) arranged in parallel with each other in the cleaning tank and capable of rotating circumferentially about their own center axes (see Fig.2B ref 208 connection to refs 202/204 indicate the shaft rotate about their center axis) via a drive unit (ref 208); the first and second shaft has at least two clamping grooves (see Fig.6 & [0048], a groove on each ref 202/204 equating to two grooves) formed in the length direction and corresponding to one another; a plurality of wafers (ref 290) in cooperation with the clamping grooves (see Fig.2B); the first and second driving shafts are located on two sides of a center axis of the wafer (see Fig.2B); the first driving shaft and the second driving shaft rotate in a same direction (implicit, if the drive shafts rotate in opposite directions the wafer would not rotate but rather move upwardly) and rotate the wafers by friction [0048]; one end of the driving shafts is suspended in the tank (see Martinez Fig.6 see ref 608) and the other end is connected to the drive unit (Martinez or Fig.6 ref 604 & [0052]).
However, assuming arguendo that the at least two clamping grooves are intended to be provided on a single shaft and not the cumulative number of clamping grooves on total number of first or second shafts, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Martinez only showcases a single groove on each drive shaft, the presence of multiple grooves is known in the art, as seen by Cui. Martinez also does not disclose a driven shaft with at least two limiting grooves located in a same vertical plane as the first and second clamping grooves. Such a feature is also indicated by Cui.
Cui discloses an art related wafer cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is shown that drive shafts (refs 20 & 20b) may have a plurality of grooves (ref 21a & 21b) in order to accommodate multiple wafers (see Figs.1 & 3). Cui also discloses driven shafts (refs 20c & 20d) are provided with grooves in a same vertical plane as grooves of driving shafts (see Fig.3 refs 21c & 21d in comparison to refs 21a and 21b) and edges of the wafers are provided within grooves (see Fig.3). By utilizing driven shafts the driving shafts can more easily rotate wafers [0038 & 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Martinez to provide the shafts with multiple grooves in order to allow for the accommodation processing of more wafers at a single time. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to implement driven shafts as the bottom shaft instead of driving shafts in order to bear more of the weight and allow for easier rotation by the driving shafts (Cui [0048]).
Modified Sakaguchi does not clearly indicate the feature of having grooves whose configuration is such that a gap is provided between a bottom of the wafer and the bottom of the groove, while the wafer touches sidewalls of the groove. However, such a groove construction is known in the art, as seen by Uehara and Brown.
Uehara discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to provide a rotating rod (ref 53) which holds wafers (ref 40) with grooves (e.g., see Figs.6B & 7B) which have sidewalls which contact the wafer, while a gap is provided between the bottom of the groove and the wafer bottom (see Figs.6B & 7B). Such a groove configuration for holding the wafers prevents slippage (Col.7 lines 20-33).
Brown discloses an art related substrate treating apparatus [0002], and particularly a roller which prevent slipping (abstract), wherein it is known that allowing for contact between the sidewalls of the wafer and a holding groove of the roller prevent slippage [0031 & 0037]. Brown also shows that the substrate bottom has a gap from the groove bottom (see Figs.1A-1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the groove construction such that sidewalls of the groove contact the wafer while a gap is maintained at the bottom in order to prevent slippage (Uehara Col.7 lines 20-33 & Brown [0031 & 0037]).
The only difference between Modified Martinez and the invention of claim 1 is the driving shafts having a length of 60-350mm. However, the limitation of the shafts having an axial length of 60-350 mm merely represents a change in the size/proportion of the driving shafts and a skilled artisan would not expect a device with the claimed dimensions to operate differently from the of Modified Martinez (see MPEP 2144.04). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide any desired shaft length to accommodate any number of substrates and fit within a complimentary sized tank.
As to claim 3, Modified Martinez teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the driven shaft is located under the wafers and deviated from the center axis of the wafers (see Cui Figs.2-3 & Martinez Fig.2B).
As to claim 6, Modified Martinez teaches the device of claim 1, wherein utilizing a same rotation speed prevents damage to the wafer. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to ensure the rotational speed of the driving shafts are the same (Cui [0054]).
As to claim 8, Modified Martinez teaches the device of claim 2, wherein Martinez showcases the cleaning modules are laterally arranged (see Fig.2B) and the end of the shaft is suspended (see Martinez Fig.6 ref 608 & Cui Figs.1 & 3). Modified Martinez does not showcase the driven shafts having first and second shaft bodies that are coaxially arranged. However, a skilled artisan would find the presence of first and second shaft bodies that are coaxially arranged would occur when the modules are longitudinally arranged in a back-to-back manner as opposed to a lateral arrangement. Further, a skilled artisan would not anticipate such an arrangement to produce unexpected results. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the arrangement of the first and second shaft bodies coaxially arranged such that adjacent ends are suspended to merely be a rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claims 9-10, Modified Martinez teaches the device of claim 1, wherein it is disclosed that separate motors may be provided for driving of different shafts (Martinez [0051-0052]). Thus, it is understood that different speeds for different shafts are capable and such a limitation is merely intended use. Modified Martinez does not showcase the driving shafts having left and right shaft bodies that are coaxially arranged. However, a skilled artisan would find the presence of left and right shaft bodies that are coaxially arranged would occur when the modules are longitudinally arranged in a back-to-back manner as opposed to a lateral arrangement. Further, a skilled artisan would not anticipate such an arrangement to produce unexpected results. Thus, a skilled artisan would find the arrangement of the modules to be longitudinally arranged in a back-to-back manner to merely be a rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04). In such an arrangement first driving shaft and second driving shaft would have left and right portions a left portion defined as the shaft in one module and the right portion defined as the shaft in the other module. Further, since the shafts are provided with separate motors, they are capable of different rotational speeds.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (US20090320875A1) in view of Cui (CN107706144A), Uehara (US6767840B1) and Brown (US20050109373A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong (CN106684021A).
As to claim 5, Modified Martinez teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the limiting grooves are in contact with the wafers to drive the driven shaft to rotate (Cui [0038]) and a gap is formed between bottom surfaces of the grooves and the wafers (see Cui Figs.2-4). A rotational speed sensor is provided to determine the speed of the rollers (Martinez [0053]). Modified Martinez does not disclose the presence of a rotation speed detection unit located externally to the driven shaft; however, such a feature is known in the art as seen by Xiong.
Xiong discloses an art related wafer rotation device for megasonic cleaning operations (abstract), a driven wheel assembly (ref 7) is provided which rotates based on contact with the wafer ([0027 & 0045]) which is driven via the driving shaft (refs 4 & 6). The driven assembly is provided with a rotational speed detection device (ref 16) in order to determine the rotational speed of the wafers [0045]. The speed detection of the driven shaft ensures that the wafers rotate at a constant speed to improve efficiency and quality [0006-0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Martinez to provide a speed sensor to an external portion of the driven shaft in order to detect wafer speed and ensures that the wafers rotate at a constant speed to improve efficiency and quality (Xiong [0006-0007]).
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights