DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the application filed 7/30/2024.
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 09/21/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0126014 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The automated document retrieval request was unsuccessful.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim line 3 recites “housing 1”. Applicant should consistently use or omit reference numbers. Here, Examiner suggested “housing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20020044371 A) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 1, Han discloses an apparatus for removing a residual gas on a wafer (abstract, fine particles, moisture, and the like, RE “gas” intended use. See MPEP 2114), comprising: at least one spraying nozzle (ref. 350C) disposed at a front of a loading volume (see fig. 3) formed within a housing (ref. 300) and extending linearly along a horizontal direction (claim 5, p. 3 ¶¶ 4-6 “installed in a horizontal direction”) respectively; and a plurality of spraying holes (ref. 350C, inherent in a spraying nozzle to include a hole) formed at each spraying nozzle along the extending direction of each spraying nozzle, wherein the residual gas or a contaminating matter on a surface of the wafer is removed by a gas (abstract, inert gas) or a CDA (Clean Dry Air) sprayed through the plurality of the spraying holes (abstract, fine particles, moisture and the like are removed….purified loading mechanism).
Re claim 2, wherein the at least one spraying nozzle consists of a plurality of spraying nozzles arranged along a vertical direction (see fig. 3 plurality of vertical arranged spraying nozzles ref. 350c).
Re claim 3, wherein the at least one spraying nozzle comprises a first spraying nozzle group (see fig. 1 refs. 150c) and a second spraying nozzle group (see fig. 3 refs. 350c) arranged in a shape to face each other. To any extent, the combination of separate embodiments in fig. 1 and fig. 3 does not anticipate the claims, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of spraying nozzle groups as depicted, in order to provide a greater coverage.
Re claim 6, Regarding “wherein each at least one spraying nozzle extends to an inner direction from a side of the housing and extends in an inclined shape to an outer direction”, the mere rearrangement of the spraying nozzle at different angle is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of targeted air spray.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20020044371 A), as applied above, in view Smith et al. (WO 2020046867 A1).
Re claim 4, Han discloses a shown above but does not disclose “wherein the plurality of spraying holes are formed in a spiral shape along the extending direction.” However, Smith discloses it is known in the substrate container purging art (abstract) to provide wherein the plurality of spraying holes (see fig. 7B holes in ref. 520) are formed in a spiral shape along the extending direction (see fig. 7B right example). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of spraying holes to be formed in a spiral shape, as suggested by Smith, in order to ensure every portion of the internal purge gas channel may be accessed.
Re claim 7, Smith further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a plurality of loading members (ref. 196) disposed within the loading volume and for loading the wafer, and contacting tip (see fig. 1 contacting portion of ref. 196 being semi spherical in shape) contacting the wafer and having a spherical shape, a poly pyramidal shape, a corn shape or a semi spherical shape is formed at each loading member.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20020044371 A), as applied above, in view Mun (KR 20180046272 A) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 5, Han discloses a shown above but does not disclose wherein the at least one spraying nozzle is configured to be rotated along a circumferential direction. However, Mun discloses it is known in the substrate container purging art (abstract) to provide at least one spraying nozzle (refs. 2620) configured to be rotated along a circumferential direction (p. 6 ¶ 12 rotation drive member). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of spraying nozzles to further be rotated, as suggested by Mun, in order to form an air stream in various directions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20020044371 A), as applied above, in view of Jeon (KR101075171B1) (machine translation attached).
Re claim 8, Han discloses a shown above but does not disclose “wherein the apparatus further comprises a discharging module formed at a rear side of the housing, and the discharging module comprises a discharging plate where a plurality of penetrating holes are formed uniformly”. However, Jeon discloses it is known in the substrate container purging art (abstract) to provide a discharging module (see figs. 1-2 and 6, refs. 110) formed at a rear side of the housing, and the discharging module comprises a discharging plate (top surface of 100) where a plurality of penetrating holes (ref. 110) are formed uniformly. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Han to further include a discharging plate, as suggested by Jeon, in order to flow the inert gas at high speed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2004097927 A1 note fig. 9a horizontal purge device
US 2022/0359250 A1 note 730 spray nozzle orientations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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 on 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711