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Claims 1, 4-9, & 12-14 are pending on the application, of which claims 1 & 4 are amended, claims 5-8 & 13-14 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 2-3 and 10-11 are cancelled.
In light of the amendments, the previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the previous art rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jenkins does not render obvious the monitoring of two specific contaminants and determining the completion of a cleaning process However, Jenkins alone is not utilized for such a teaching. Rather, the references taken in combination, would provide such a suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Uno indicates that starch and PVA are two contaminants that are present when cleaning the tool [0010, 0038, 0041], and two different values can be measured and compared in order to determine that a cleaning process is complete [0053]. Meanwhile, Jenkins provides a teaching of utilizing two different wavelengths for detection of two different contaminants (Col lines 10-15), and Kaiser and Kawasaki suggests the ending of a cleaning process when a fluorescence value is below a threshold. Accordingly, when the references are taken in combination, they would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the utilization of two different wavelength for excitation of the starch and PVA and determination of the item being cleaned when the fluorescence associated with each wavelength is below a specified amount.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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: “liquid extraction part” and “fluorescence analysis part” in claim 1-4 & 9-12.
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 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, 4, 9 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (JP2022034694A) in view of Gheparde (US20090050174A1), Jenkins (US5922606A), Kaiser (US20030102007A1) and Kawasaki (US20200011791A1).
As to claims 1 & 4, Uno discloses a cleaning apparatus for performing a cleaning process on a washing tool for substrate washing by supplying a washing liquid to the washing tool and bringing the washing tool into contact with a cleaning member (abstract), the cleaning apparatus comprising: a liquid extraction part that extracts a washing liquid remaining inside the washing tool or a washing liquid flowing out from the washing tool during the cleaning process (ref 62 or 82, see also [0015-0016, 0036, & 0057]); an analysis part (ref 68) which measures the absorbance of the liquid in a predetermined wavelength [0036, 0040, 0045, & 0057]; and a determination unit (ref 72) which determines, based on the measured absorbance, whether or not the cleaning of the washing tool has been completed [0041 & 0046]. A skilled artisan would reasonably believe that the determination unit is at least some part of a processor. However, assuming arguendo that it is not clear from Uno that the determination unit is a processor, such a feature is known my Gheparde. Uno does not disclose a florescence analysis part or a processor for analyzing the extracted washing liquid and measuring an intensity of the washing liquid for an excitation light of a predetermined wavelength to determine if the cleaning of the washing tool has been completed. Rather Uno is directed towards detection of absorbance for performing the determination of the whether or not the tool is clean. However, the determining the cleanliness of an item based on the spent liquid utilized to clean it via fluorometry is known in the art, as seen by Jenkins.
Gheparde disclose an art related manner of washing an item/tool (abstract), wherein it is known that a controller may control a washing step based on a detective fluorescence [0050].
Jenkins discloses determining cleanliness of an object based on the fluorometric monitoring of a rinse solution used to clean said object (abstract & Col.8 lines 45-48). Specifically, a rinse solution containing impurities from the cleaning of the object is fluorometrically monitored (Col.8 line 52 to Col.9 line 5 & Col.9 lines 20-41). The presence and concentration of a species (e.g., contaminant) within the fluid and the fluid is determined based on the measured emission intensity of fluorescence (Col.4 lines 45-60) and a wavelength utilized is predetermined in order to ensure good relative fluorescence (Col.4 line 65 to Col.5 line 5). Jenkins further indicates that a fluorometer for performing fluorometric analysis has excitation and emission filters (Col. 6 lines 40-46) with a detector being understood to be present in order to detect the fluorescence (see also Col.4 lines 13-15 & 25-37). Thus, the fluorometer reads on a fluorescence analysis part. Jenkins and Uno are related in the field of cleaning for semiconductor devices (Col.1 lines 17-30). Detecting the fluorescence of the liquid and contaminant therein allows for quick and accurate determination of the state of the liquid and the item being cleaned (Col.1 lines 13-15 & Col.3 line 39-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Uno to utilize a fluorometer (i.e., fluorescence analysis part) to analyze the condition of the washing liquid and via measurement of the fluorescence intensity for an excitation light of a predetermined wavelength to obtain quick and accurate determination of the state of the liquid and the item being cleaned (Jenkins Col.1 lines 13-15 & Col.3 line 39-45). The modification would perform the determination of whether the cleaning of the tool is complete based on the fluorescence intensity rather than the absorbance. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize a controller for determining whether the cleaning cycle needs to be extended based on the fluorescence, as it is known to use a controller to do so (Gheparde [0050]).
Accordingly, Modified Uno the determination of the presence of a target species (i.e., contaminant) is made based on the fluorescence intensity at the emission wavelength in response to the excitation wavelength (Jenkins Col.4 lines 10-50). Jenkins also indicates that separate wavelengths can be utilized for exciting each target species in the fluid (Col.6 lines 10-15), while also envisaging the possibility of utilizing a single wavelength for multiple species via the phrase “preferably”. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to measure a first intensity and second intensity associated with a first and second wavelength respectively to determine the presence of a contaminant. Further, Uno indicates that the washing tool is a PVA sponge [0010 & 0038], and that the washing of such tools results in starch and PVA eluted from the sponge which act as possible contaminants and cause defects [0010 & 0041]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize first and second wavelengths associated with the fluorescence wavelengths of starch and PVA. Modified Uno does not explicitly disclose the washing of the tool being completed when a measured value of the fluorescence intensities is below a set value. However, such a feature is known in the field as seen by Kaiser and Kawasaki.
Kaiser discloses a manner for decontaminating sensitive equipment (abstract), such as electrical equipment [0006-0007], wherein it is disclosed that items cleaned in a bath are considered clean once the fluid used for cleaning said items has a fluorescence below a preset value [0167]. Operation of components is controlled via a controller [0150 & 0157-0158]. Kaiser and Uno are related in the decontamination of items for use with electronical equipment.
Kawasaki discloses a cleaning system where cleaning performance can be evaluated. Specifically, Kawasaki discloses that cleaning operations can dilute and dissolve a fluorescent contaminant [0073], such that as a cleaning process continues the concentration of the contaminant, and the fluorescence of the liquid, will decrease until it reaches a value which is considered to be considered clean [0074-0075]. Kawasaki and Uno are related in the monitoring a cleaning process based on liquid extracted from the cleaning operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Uno to determine that the tool is clean when the fluorescence of starch and PVA are below preset values which are indicative of their reduced concentration within the liquid and a clean state of the tool (Kaiser [0167 & Kawasaki [0073-0075]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner for determining an endpoint for cleaning in place of another, when such is known in the field, with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 9, Modified Uno teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 1 provided in a substrate washing apparatus, wherein a washing process is performed on a substrate using the washing tool that was subjected to a washing process by the cleaning apparatus (See claim 10. Figs.5-7, & [0026-0031 & 0046]).
As to claim 12, Modified Uno teaches the cleaning apparatus of claim 4, provided in a substrate washing apparatus, wherein a washing process is performed on a substrate using the washing tool that was subjected to a washing process by the cleaning apparatus (See claim 10. Figs.5-7, & [0026-0031 & 0046]).
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