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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending. Claim 6 is cancelled.
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 1-5 and 7-10 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 radial direction" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the radial direction” in line 22 renders the claim indefinite because it is not exactly clear what feature’s radial direction is being referred to. The first spray unit? The top ring? Something else? It appears the intended meaning may be that it is referring to the top ring, and this meaning will be used for purposes of examination.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200059123 to Lee et al. (“Lee”, and note the attached translation) in view of US 2014/0120725 to Miyazaki et al.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a substrate cleaning device that cleans a surface of a substrate (abstract), the substrate cleaning device comprising: a first spray unit (Fig. 1, ref. 111, translation, page 7, last para – page 8, para beginning “ The side nozzle 112”) that is capable of spraying cleaning liquid toward the substrate present in a cleaning position and a second spray unit (Fig. 1, ref. 112, translation, page 7, last para – page 8, para beginning “ The side nozzle 112”) that is capable of spraying cleaning liquid toward the substrate present in the cleaning position, wherein the second spray unit is provided on either a downstream side or an upstream side of the first spray unit, with respect to a rotation direction (Fig. 1) in the cleaning position.
Lee does not explicitly teach the device being operated in a manner wherein the substrate has been polished and is provided for a polishing device including a polishing table having a polishing surface for performing substrate polishing and a top ring for holding and pressing the substrate against the polishing surface by using a membrane while causing a retainer ring to surround an outer circumferential part of the substrate, wherein the top ring is movable between a polishing position where the substrate polishing is performed above the polishing table and a handover position where the substrate is handed over in a lateral position relative to the polishing table, the substrate cleaning device is provided in correspondence with a cleaning position between the polishing position and the handover position, and the cleaning liquid from the second spray unit urges the cleaning liquid sprayed from the first spray unit toward the outer circumferential part of the substrate.
Initially, it is noted that the recited substrate, polishing device, including polishing table, polishing surface, top ring, membrane, retainer ring, and cleaning liquid are not affirmatively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed device. Accordingly, recitations of these features are understood to be applicant’s contemplated intended use of the claimed device.
Further, polishing devices with polishing tables, top rings and retainer rings were known in the art (as evidenced by, e.g., Miyazaki at, inter alia, the abstract). Since the Lee device includes the claimed structural features, it appears to be fully capable of being operated in the manner recited, with the recited but unclaimed structural features. Further, it can be reasonably expected that cleaning liquid from the second spray unit will urge cleaning liquid sprayed from the first spray unit toward the outer circumferential part of a substrate (note Lee, Fig. 1).
Lee discloses spraying the cleaning liquid at multiple angles to a plurality of portions of a substrate (translation, page 8, last para), but does not explicitly teach the device wherein the first spray unit comprises a plurality of substrate cleaning nozzles that are arranged along the radial direction while being positioned underneath the top ring when the top ring is in the cleaning position, wherein the plurality of substrate cleaning nozzles spray the cleaning liquid to have a substantially oval shape, while a longitudinal direction of the cleaning liquid is tilted along the rotation direction of the top ring with respect to a radial direction of the top ring present in the cleaning position. As previously noted, recited the top ring and cleaning liquid are among the features recited but not affirmatively claimed and not understood to be required structural features of the claimed device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Lee device wherein the first spray unit comprises a plurality of substrate cleaning nozzles, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and save time. Note the duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Further, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Lee device wherein the plurality of substrate cleaning nozzles are rearranged to provide a variety of angles, including wherein they are arranged along the radial direction while being positioned underneath the top ring when the top ring is in the cleaning position, wherein the plurality of substrate cleaning nozzles spray the cleaning liquid to have a substantially oval shape, while a longitudinal direction of the cleaning liquid is tilted along the rotation direction of the top ring with respect to a radial direction of the top ring present in the cleaning position, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of using a variety of angles in order to enhance cleaning. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)) as are changes in shape (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses spraying the cleaning liquid at multiple angles to a plurality of portions of a substrate (translation, page 8, last para), but does not explicitly teach the device wherein a spray nozzle structuring the second spray unit is tilted toward the first spray unit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify spray angles of the Lee device, including wherein the second spray unit is tilted toward the first spray unit, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of using a variety of angles in order to enhance cleaning. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses a device wherein the second spray unit is provided on the downstream side of the first spray unit, with respect to the rotation direction of the top ring present in the cleaning position (Fig. 1, either of the ref. 112 nozzles). It is noted that in a revolving circle scenario, a downstream side can also be considered an upstream side, and vice versa. That is, if a nozzle sprays a point A, and then a point B, point B may be considered downstream. But as the revolving continues from point B back to point A, point B may also be considered as upstream.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses a device wherein the second spray unit is provided on the upstream side of the first spray unit, with respect to the rotation direction of the top ring present in the cleaning position (Fig. 1, either of the ref. 112 nozzles). It is noted that in a revolving circle scenario, a downstream side can also be considered an upstream side, and vice versa. That is, if a nozzle sprays a point A, and then a point B, point B may be considered downstream. But as the revolving continues from point B back to point A, point B may also be considered as upstream.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses a device wherein the second spray unit is provided on the upstream side and the downstream side of the first spray unit, with respect to the rotation direction of the top ring present in the cleaning position (Fig. 1, either of the ref. 112 nozzles). It is noted that in a revolving circle scenario, a downstream side can also be considered an upstream side, and vice versa. That is, if a nozzle sprays a point A, and then a point B, point B may be considered downstream. But as the revolving continues from point B back to point A, point B may also be considered as upstream.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a device wherein the first spray unit and the second spray unit are capable of spraying the cleaning liquid independently of each other (translation, page 8, paras beginning “The cleaning liquid injection unit 110” and “The control unit 120”).
Regarding claim 8, either of the first spray unit and the second spray unit appear to read on a spray unit that sprays cleaning liquid toward a position between the membrane and the retainer ring and/or toward the retainer ring (Fig. 1). Further, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to add an additional spray unit that sprays are recited, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and save time. It is noted that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). It is further noted that the recited membrane and retainer ring are not affirmatively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches a substrate device comprising: the substrate cleaning device according to claim 1; and a controlling unit that controls the substrate cleaning device (translation, page 3, last para), but does not explicitly teach the polishing table and the top ring; and a controlling unit that controls operations of the top ring. Polishing tables with top rings were known in the art as effective for enhancing cleaning (note, e.g., Miyazaki at, inter alia, para [0009], [0012]). Further, control units were known in the art as effective for enhancing process control (see, e.g., Lee, translation, page 3, last para, and Miyazaki, para [0038]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Lee device wherein it includes the polishing table and the top ring; and wherein the controlling unit controls operations of the top ring, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and process control.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a device wherein the first spray unit and the second spray unit are capable of spraying the cleaning liquid independently of each other (translation, page 8, paras beginning “The cleaning liquid injection unit 110” and “The control unit 120”), but does not explicitly teach the device wherein the controlling unit exercises control so that the first spray unit sprays the cleaning liquid after the second spray unit sprays the cleaning liquid. However, it is noted that there are only three options: 1) first spray unit is first, 2) second spray unit is first, and 3) first and second spray units are simultaneous, and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try the Lee device wherein the controlling unit exercises control so that the first spray unit sprays the cleaning liquid after the second spray unit sprays the cleaning liquid, through routine experimentation, with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the applied art does not teach or suggest the device being operated in a manner wherein one spray creates a spray field that urges liquid sprayed from another nozzle toward a substrate periphery since, it is alleged, Lee discloses operating the device wherein liquid is sprayed in phases to achieve uniform coverage (remarks, page 6, first full para), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (remarks, page 6, last full para), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the position that it can be reasonably expected that cleaning liquid from the second spray unit will urge cleaning liquid sprayed from the first spray unit toward the outer circumferential part of a substrate, made reference to Lee, Fig. 1 (see, Office action mailed 12/18/2025, page 4, first para). The figure shows jets that would urge any pre-existing liquid away from the center and toward the periphery. Again, the relevant recitation here refers to an intended use.
Applicant also argues case law (remarks, page 6, last para). It is important to note that, while certain MPEP sections may be based upon case law, the rejection analysis is based upon the MPEP and note upon case law per se. Accordingly, for a proper discuss, at least during prosecution, applicant is urged to frame their arguments with respect to the MPEP rather than case law.
Further, it is noted that the Office does not rely solely on the relevant MPEP sections. See, for example, the Office action mailed 12/18/2025, page 5, para beginning “Regarding claim 6”, wherein it states: “… However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify spray angles of the Lee device, including wherein the first spray unit sprays the cleaning liquid to have a substantially oval shape, while a longitudinal direction of the cleaning liquid is tilted along the rotation direction of the top ring with respect to a radial direction of the top ring present in the cleaning position, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of using a variety of angles in order to enhance cleaning. Note that rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)) as are changes in shape (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B))” (emphasis added). Thus, even if, arguendo, applicant were to disregard the MPEP 2144.04 portions, there remains the initially stated motivation based upon Lee’s disclosure. Indeed, Lee’s disclosure using a variety of angles would appear to raise questions about applicant’s case law argument, i.e. that such a rearrangement would change the operation, function or result of the device.
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 ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights