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 Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for their election of claims 1-13, as submitted on 12/15/2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a dry cleaning module in claim 1. When looking to the specification, the dry cleaning module (100) is described in [0007-0009] and [0047-0050], including a cavity, cleaning carrier platform, a filter, and a dry cleaning nozzle. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Examiner notes that claim 2 resolves the 112(f) invocation of claim 1.
an inspection module in claim 1. When looking to the specification, the inspection module (200) is described in [0052], including a cavity, an inspection carrier platform, an inspection lens, and an inspection analyzer. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
a storage module in claim 1. When looking to the specification, the storage module (300) is described in [0044] and [0072-0074], including a storage medium such as a database, a hard drive, a memory, a memory card, cloud, a server, a workstation or an internet electronic device. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, please amend “wherein a plurality of dry cleaning is provided” to read “wherein a plurality of dry cleaning nozzles is provided”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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, recitations of “the inspection result” renders the claimed invention indefinite. Claim 1 firstly establishes an inspection result in singular form, then recites “inspecting the container component before the cleaning and after the cleaning by the inspection module to obtain the inspection result”, as well as “determining, according to the inspection result after the cleaning…”. These inspection result before the cleaning and inspection result after the cleaning are two different results, as can be interpreted from the claim language, however the claim consistently refers to the inspection result in singular form. Please clearly differentiate the inspection result(s).
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20260004258).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (US 20260004258) discloses a dry cleaning device, adapted to clean a container component of a container of a semiconductor manufacturing process (see Abstract and dry ice gun disclosed in [0267]; see also [0073-0075]), the dry cleaning device comprising:
a dry cleaning module, adapted to clean the container component by carbon dioxide snowflakes ([0267]; see Figures 7A-9A, [0107-0110], [0145-0147], wherein robot 220, 230, or 240_1 having a dry ice fun on the end effector can perform the maintenance/cleaning work, see [0163] and Figures 11A-11C; see also [0401], [0402], [0073-0077]);
an inspection module, adapted to inspect the container component to obtain an inspection result (see [0073-0077], [0113], [0115], [0118], [0127]; see at least multi-sensor unit 750, imaging device 727, multisensory unit 792, imaging device 960; see [0143-0147], [0158-0161], [0396-0400]);
a storage module, adapted to store the container component and a corresponding cleaning working set (see at least [0152-0159] disclosing the hardware for the controllable system, including memory 1002, auxiliary storage device 1003, see [0162]; see also [0334-0339] regarding hardware and storage device 2403, recording medium 2420, network 1015; see also [0342] and work information storage unit 2511);
a programmable logic controller (PLC), signally connected to the dry cleaning module, the inspection module and the storage module (see at least the controller in Figures 10, 11A-11C, remote monitoring apparatus 210, as well as [0056-0061], [0153-0162], [0327-0330], [0393-0396]), the PLC adapted to perform steps of:
cleaning the container component with carbon dioxide snowflakes by the dry cleaning module according to the cleaning working set (see [0305-0306] regarding performing cleaning);
inspecting the container component before the cleaning and after the cleaning by the inspection module to obtain the inspection result (see [0196-0201], see also [0228-0232] regarding measuring the work qualities after the cleaning work in all the cleaning regions; see also [0373-0378], [0395]);
determining a component type of the container component according to the inspection result before the cleaning (see [0208-0211], as well as Figures 12 and 18 regarding components 101-104),
selecting a predetermined cleaning procedure corresponding to the component type from the cleaning working set according to the component type, and cleaning the container component by carbon dioxide snowflakes by the dry cleaning module according to the predetermined cleaning procedure ([0147]: wherein the cleaning operation is controlled based on image data captured by the sensor, and a predetermined operation suited to the state of contamination (type of contamination, the area of the contamination, and the light, is performed; see also [220-0223] regarding cleaning work parameters for each work item);
determining, according to the inspection result after the cleaning, whether the cleaning of the container component is complete, and generating a determination result ([0104-0105], [0148-0151] wherein the work quality after cleaning is determined, see also [0191-0193], [0370-0371], [0380-0384]); and
selecting a subsequent cleaning procedure corresponding to the inspection result from the cleaning working set according to the determination result, and cleaning the container component by carbon dioxide snowflakes by the dry cleaning module according to the subsequent cleaning procedure (see [0191-0194], [0199-0203], [0232-0250]), or forwarding the container component to a next workstation.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses a cavity (see Figure 4, 7A, 8A, and 9B, processing spaces 510, as well as [0090-0092]);
a cleaning carrier platform, disposed in the cavity, the cleaning carrier platform adapted to hold the container component (see Figure 8B);
a filter, disposed in the cavity, the filter adapted to filter a gas for a clean gas to flow into the cavity (see [0073] and [0262] disclosing a filter; see also gas supply 520 and gas exhaust system 540, [0090], [0095-0096]); and
a dry cleaning nozzle, disposed in the cavity, the dry cleaning nozzle spraying carbon dioxide snowflakes to the container component according to the cleaning working set (wherein a CO2 dispenser and a dry ice gun are modules which may be attached to the robot elements for cleaning interior elements).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the dry cleaning module further comprises a cleaning movement module, and the PLC controls the cleaning movement module to adjust a relative position relationship between the dry cleaning nozzle and the container component (wherein any of the robots which are configured to perform the cleaning with the dry ice gun element are configured to move to permit cleaning of a selected component, see at least Figure 7A-9C).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the inspection module comprises:
an inspection carrier platform, adapted to carry the container component (see Figures 7A-9C);
an inspection lens, adapted to inspect the container component (see imaging device disclosed in [0107-0110], imaging device 727 in [0130-0131], imaging device 820 disclosed in [0133-0134], imagine device 940 in [0140], and imaging device 960 disclosed in [0146-0147]); and
an inspection analyzer, adapted to analyze a condition of the container component after the inspecting to accordingly obtain an inspection result (see [0145-0147], [0148-0151]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the inspection module further comprises an inspection movement module, and the PLC is for controlling the inspection movement module to adjust a relative position relationship between the inspection lens and the container component (wherein the imaging devices disclosed in at least [0107-0110], [0130-0131], [0133-0134], [0140], and [0146-0147] are disposed on robotic elements for movement, see Figures 7A-9C).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the PLC determines whether the cleaning is complete by comparing a defective substance quantity within a unit area in the inspection result after the cleaning with a predetermined inspection standard ([0148-0151]: wherein the work robot can measure the number of particles within the chamber and using a predetermined threshold, determines if the measured number of particles is satisfactory such that the cleaning operation can cease; see also [0241]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the PLC obtains the subsequent cleaning procedure for strengthening regional cleaning from the cleaning working set according to the inspection result after the cleaning (see [0195-0205]; [0217-0219], [0223-0226], [0228-0232], see also Figure 15).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the storage module has a plurality of component types of the container component and contamination types ([0147] discloses types and areas of contamination, wherein Figures 3 and 6 show multiple component types), predetermined cleaning procedures and subsequent cleaning procedures in the corresponding cleaning working set stored therein (see at least Figure 18 regarding cleaning procedures and necessary parts therefor; see also Figure 15); the PLC determines the component type and the contamination type according to the inspection result before the cleaning or after the cleaning (wherein Figures 3 and 6 show multiple component types, see also([0147]: wherein the cleaning operation is controlled based on image data captured by the sensor, and a predetermined operation suited to the state of contamination (type of contamination, the area of the contamination, and the light, is performed; see also [220-0223] regarding cleaning work parameters for each work item), and selects the predetermined cleaning procedure or subsequent cleaning procedure corresponding to the contamination type ([0104-0105], [0148-0151] wherein the work quality after cleaning is determined, see also [0191-0193], [0370-0371], [0380-0384]; see also [0191-0194], [0199-0203], [0232-0250]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the PLC provides feedback and adjusts the cleaning working set in the storage module according to the inspection result, wherein the cleaning working set comprises the predetermined cleaning procedure and the subsequent cleaning procedure (see at least Figure 18 regarding cleaning procedures and necessary parts therefor; see also Figure 15; see at least [0190-01206]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the PLC further comprises an artificial intelligence (AI) determination engine for updating the cleaning working set in the storage module according to the inspection result (see [0199-0203], [0212-0219], [0222-0224], [0231-0232], [0246], [0341-0344]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the inspection module further comprises an AI inspection engine, and the inspection result is obtained by processing of the AI inspection engine (see [0199-0203], [0212-0219], [0222-0224], [0231-0232], [0246], [0341-0344]).
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) 3 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20260004258) in view of Kim Se Ho (JP 2007184524A).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of dry cleaning is provided, the plurality of dry cleaning nozzles is arranged at different positions in the cavity, and the dry cleaning nozzles are controllable to rotate in different directions to clean the container component.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kim Se Ho teaches of a substrate container cleaning apparatus (see Abstract), and wherein a plurality of dry cleaning is provided, the plurality of dry cleaning nozzles is arranged at different positions in the cavity, and the dry cleaning nozzles are controllable to rotate in different directions to clean the container component (see Figure 5 regarding nozzles, wherein page 3 of the English translation attached teaches of dry ice nozzles, wherein nozzles 330 spray dry ice particles; wherein plate 332 is rotatable coupled to a drive shaft 332, see page 7 of the English translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of rotatable dry ice nozzles, as taught by Kim Se Ho, into the invention of Kim. Kim specifically intimates and suggests alternative tool types provided to the robotic elements in [0267], and the tool type of Kim Se Ho provides additional nozzle heads for increasing the contaminant removal rate within the substrate processing system of Kim, thus motivating one to make the modification.
Claim(s) 7 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20260004258) in view of Tang (US 8,924,019).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the PLC divides a region of the container component into a mesh pattern according to the inspection result before the cleaning and after the cleaning, and labels a contamination type.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of automated cleaning devices, Tang teaches the PLC divides a region of the container component into a mesh pattern according to the inspection result before the cleaning and after the cleaning, and labels a contamination type (wherein the image processing module may divided the collected image of the surface to be treated into blocks, extract image information of each block and process the image information in order to determine the dirtiest surface to be treated; see at least Col. 2, lines 44-54; Col. 7, lines 15-34; Col. 8, lines 19-39 and 49-60; Col. 9, lines 13-28; Col. 16, lines 32-51; wherein when incorporated into the invention of Kim, Kim also teaches of determining the type and area of contamination in [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Tang into the invention of Kim. One would be motivated to do so in order to enhance the cleaning operation by improving the accuracy of determination and working efficiency in order to save working time; see Col. 7, lines 15-34 of Tang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gillis (US 5,123,207), see Abstract.
Houng (US 20200294834), see Figures 2 and 3.
Brand (US 20240009856), see Abstract
Hwang (US 20240379345), see Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723