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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/8/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 26-46) in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the stated materially different process to which the apparatus claims can be employed contradicts the specification. This is not found persuasive because the contradiction of the specification does not necessarily imply that the cited materially different process of etching combined with plasma cannot be accomplished using the apparatus. The fact that the specification provides that plasma etching is known in the prior art does not imply that the apparatus as claimed would be unable to accomplish a process including etching with plasma. In fact, the specification stating that plasma etching is known in the art supports the possibility of etching combined with plasma as a materially different process that may be accomplished with the apparatus as claimed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 30 is 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 30 recites the limitation: “..the to-be-cleaned area of the object is performed with the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step..” in line 2. It is unclear what a to-be-cleaned area of the object performance involves whether structurally or functionally. For examination purposes it has been assumed that the limitation reads: “..the to-be-cleaned area of the object is treated with the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step..”.
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.
Claims 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (WO2007108481A1).
Regarding claims 26-28, 30, 32-34, Matsumura et al. teaches a composite cleaning system capable of performing a composite cleaning step on a to-be-cleaned area of at least one object (see abstract), comprising: a carrier 7t capable of carrying the object, the object having at least one to-be-cleaned target located on the to-be-cleaned area of the object (see figures 2-3, page 8 of the translation); a laser cleaning device 8 capable of performing a laser reactive cleaning step on the to-be-cleaned area of the object (see figures 2-3, page 9 of the translation); and a gas or liquid cleaning device 201, 11, 3 capable of performing a gas and liquid reactive cleaning step (such as an ozone cleaning method, reads on claim 28) on the to-be-cleaned area of the object, thereby either the laser reactive cleaning step or the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step are capable of being assisted by the other to improve a cleaning effect of the to-be-cleaned target on the to-be-cleaned area (see figure 3, pages 8-9 of the translation) (reads on claim 26); the gas or liquid cleaning device 201, 11, 3 further comprises a tank 3, wherein the to-be-cleaned area of the object is performed with the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step in the tank 3 (see figures 2, 4, page 8 of the translation) (reads on claim 30); the composite cleaning step capable of performing the laser reactive cleaning step and the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step on the to-be-cleaned area of the object simultaneously (figure 3, pages 8-9 of the translation) (reads on claim 27); the gas or liquid cleaning device 201, 11, 3 of the composite cleaning system further comprises an oscillating element 11a for simultaneously oscillating the to-be-cleaned area of the object when performing the composite cleaning step on the to-be-cleaned area of the object (see pages 4, 9 of the translation, figure 3, the vibration imparted to the fluid is capable of imparting vibration onto the object) (reads on claim 32); the gas or liquid cleaning device 201, 11, 3 of the composite cleaning system comprises a temperature control and adjustment element H/212 capable of controlling and adjusting a temperature of the composite cleaning step when performing the composite cleaning step on the to-be-cleaned area of the object (see pages 9-10 of the translation, figures 4, 10) (reads on claim 33); the carrier 7t is a rotary worktable for rotating the object, thereby enabling the gas or liquid cleaning device to perform the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step on the to-be-cleaned area of the object in a rotating state (see figures 2-3, pages 8-9 of the translation) (reads on claim 34).
Regarding claims 29 and 35, Matsumura et al. teaches the limitations of claims 26 and 28. Matsumura et al. teaches that the system is capable of supplying a liquid through the gas or liquid cleaning device 11 to clean the to-be-cleaned area of the object and that the ozone cleaning method uses ozone supplied form a gas or liquid supply source 203/202/202v/205 (see figures 3-4, pages 8-9 of the translation). Matsumura et al. does not explicitly teach that the ozone cleaning method also includes the supply of ozone-deionized water and/or hydrofluoric acid. However, since the system by Matsumura is capable of supplying fluids and teaches all of the structural requirements of the claim, the particular choice of fluids supplied is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 31, Matsumura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 28. Matsumura et al. also teaches that the gas or liquid cleaning device 11, 3 further comprises a tank 3 and the objects is placed in the tank 3 to perform the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step, the tank 3 being capable of accommodating multiple objects (see figures 2, 4, page 8 of the translation). Matsumura et al. does not explicitly teach that a number of the object is plural, and the objects are placed in the tank at the same time to perform the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step. However, since system is capable of treating multiple objects in the tank and all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular number of objects treated is a matter of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (WO2007108481A1) as applied to claim 26 and further in view of Park et al. (KR102598124B1).
Regarding claims 36-38, Matsumura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 26. Matsumura et al. teaches that the cleaning may occur in an environment containing ozone (see abstract, page 8 of the translation). Matsumura et al. does not teach a grinding or polishing step or a plasma device. Park et al. teaches a substrate cleaning system (see abstract) and that a roll brush 123 (which is capable of providing a grinding or polishing action on the substrate) is provided so as to provide a physical contact cleaning of the substrate (see figures 1-3 and page 5 of the translation); and a plasma device 400 capable of providing a plasma to the to-be-cleaned area of the substrate before performing the grinding and polishing step (reads on claim 37), thereby allowing for the removal of organic substances (see figure 2, page 6 of the translation). Since both Matsumura et al. and Park et al. teach substrate cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a roll brush and plasma device may be provided in the system by Matsumura et al. so as to provide a physical contact cleaning of the substrate, as well as removal of organic substances, as shown to be known and conventional by Park et al. Hence, it is readily apparent that, since Matsumura et al. teaches that the cleaning may involve laser cleaning as well as cleaning with a gas or liquid cleaning step that occur in an environment containing ozone, in the modified system the grinding and polishing step on the to-be-cleaned area of the object may occur in an environment containing ozone (reads on claim 38) and may be performed on the to-be-cleaned area of the object before, between or after performing the laser reactive cleaning step and the gas or liquid reactive cleaning step (reads on claim 36).
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (WO2007108481A1) as applied to claim 26 and further in view of Mitsuta et al. (JP2002373878A).
Regarding claims 39-40, Matsumura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 26. Matsumura does not teach a plasma device to provide a plasma to the to-be-cleaned area of the object. Mitsuta et al. teaches a laser cleaning system (see abstract) and a plasma device 15 capable of providing a plasma to the to-be-cleaned area of the object 18A, the plasma device 15 being a remote plasma device (see figure 1, showing that the plasma device 15 is remote from the processing chamber 10), and the plasma is a remote plasma (the plasma is formed in the remote plasma device 15) (reads on claim 40); thereby allowing for effective removal of inorganic particles (see abstract, pages 2-3 of the translation, figure 1). Since both Matsumura et al. and Mitsuta et al. teach laser cleaning devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a remote plasma device may be included in the system by Matsumura et al. so as to provide a remote plasma to the object to be cleaned, thereby allowing for the effective removal of inorganic particles.
Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (WO2007108481A1) as applied to claim 26.
Regarding claims 41 and 45, Matsumura et l. teaches the limitations of claim 26. Matsumura et al. also teaches in figure 3 and page 9 of the translation that the laser cleaning device 8 generates a laser beam to provide a pulse energy (see e.g. excimer laser, reads on pulsing laser energy) to the to-be-cleaned area of the object. Matsumura et al. does not teach that the laser beam is provided in a scanning manner. Matsumura et al. teaches in page 8 of the translation that a drive device 13 may be used in order to allow for even distribution of cleaning spray and resultant uniform cleaning effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the laser cleaning device may be actuated in a scanning manner (reads on adjustable manner of claim 45) so as to allow for more even distribution of the laser energy for a more even cleaning effect.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, Matsumura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 41. Matsumura et al. teaches in figure 3 and page 9 of the translation that the laser cleaning device 8 is capable of directing pulse energy (see e.g. excimer laser, reads on pulsing laser energy) towards object to be cleaned and that a liquid may also be present on the object. Matsumura et al. does not explicitly teach that the laser cleaning device causes the to-be-cleaned target on the to-be-cleaned area of the object to absorb the pulse energy and separate from the to-be-cleaned area of the object in the laser reactive cleaning step; or that the laser cleaning device causes a liquid to absorb the pulse energy to generate an explosion pressure wave in the laser reactive cleaning step, thereby producing the cleaning effect on the to-be-cleaned target on the to-be-cleaned area of the object with assistance of the liquid. However, the reaction of the object and/or fluid thereon to the laser energy depends on the particular nature of the object and fluid, and it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Since Matsumura et al. teaches that the laser cleaning device is capable of directing a pulse energy towards the object to be cleaned and all of the structural requirements of the claim are taught by the prior art, the particular nature of the object to be treated is a matter of intended use and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 44, Matsumura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 41. Matsumura et al. teaches in figure 3 and pages 8-9 of the translation that a fluid may be present on the object to be cleaned and that the laser cleaning device 8 is capable of providing a pulse energy (see e.g. excimer laser, reads on pulsing laser energy) to focus at a focal position on the object to be cleaned, thereby producing the cleaning effect on the to-be-cleaned target on the to-be-cleaned area. Matsumura et al. does not explicitly teach that the focal position is a distance away from the to-be-cleaned target in the laser reactive cleaning step, and that a plasma shock wave is formed at the focal position. However, the reaction of the object and/or fluid thereon to the laser energy depends on the particular nature of the object and fluid, and it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Since the system by Matsumura et al. is capable of focusing a laser pulse energy at a focal point, the particular location of the focal point on the object and the particular nature of the object and fluid are matters of intended use, and it has been determined that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (WO2007108481A1) as applied to claim 41 and further in view of Song et al. (US20040206731).
Regarding claim 46, Matsumura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 41. Matsumura et al. also teaches the laser beam is a pulsed laser. Matsumura et al. does not explicitly teach that the laser beam is a nanosecond laser with a wavelength of 1,064 nm. Song et al. teaches a laser cleaning system (see abstract) and that a pulsed nanosecond laser with a wavelength of 1064nm allows for the removal of particles from the surface of the substrate (see paragraph [0068]). Since both Matsumura et al. and Song et al. teach laser cleaning apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a pulsed nanosecond laser with a wavelength of 1064nm may be applied in the system by Matsumura et al. so as to allow for the removal of particles from the surface of the substrate, as shown to be known and conventional by Song et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/ EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711