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Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/1/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 9-15) in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims is related and that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one of the group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims, and that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the consideration of undue burden is one that must be made by the examiner. Applicant’s arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive insofar as the searches are not co-extensive, as shown in the restriction requirement, and additional search would be of necessity for the combination of inventions (e.g. the difference species/inventions will require different search strategies including different fields of search and employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US20200303218) in view of Lianto et al. (US20200306931).
Regarding claims 9-12, 15, Choi et al. teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) processing system (see abstract, paragraph [0002]), comprising: a polishing portion 110 (see figure 1, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]); a transfer robot 126 disposed between the polishing portion 110 and a cleaning portion 125 coupled to the polishing portion 110 (see figure 1, paragraphs [0046], [0050], [0054]), the cleaning portion 125 comprising: a non-contact cleaning module 125b disposed in the cleaning portion 125 that provides a fluid cleaning (reads on removing contaminant particles without using mechanical force, reads on claim 15) effect to remove contaminant particles (see figure 2, paragraphs [0055]-[0063]); a contact cleaning module 125c disposed in the cleaning portion 125 (see figure 2, paragraphs [0056]-[0059]); and a substrate handler 122 disposed between the non-contact cleaning module 125b and the contact cleaning module 125c (see figure 2, paragraph [0048], [0058], see movement of substrate within 125); and a controller 113 coupled to the CMP processing system (see figure 1, paragraph [0043]) and configured to cause the CMP processing system to: polish a substrate in the substrate polishing portion 110 (see figure 1, paragraph [0054]); after polishing, place the substrate onto the non-contact cleaning module 125b of the cleaning portion 125 using the transfer robot 126 (see figures 1-2, paragraph [0054]); direct an energized cleaning fluid from a cleaning nozzle 342/352 of the non-contact cleaning module 125b to a surface of the substrate (see figures 3-15, paragraphs [0083]-[0084], [[086], [0108]-[0110]); remove the substrate from the non-contact cleaning module 125b using the substrate handler 122; and place the substrate in the contact cleaning module 125c using the substrate handler 122 (see paragraphs [0048], [0054], [0058], figures 1-2). Choi et al. does not explicitly teach a cleaning nozzle array. Lianto et al. teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system (see abstract) and that a nozzle array 500/600/700 may be included so as to provide enhanced spray coverage for the entire surface of the substrate (see figures 5-7, paragraphs [0034]-[0036]), the nozzle array 500/600/700 comprising outer cleaning nozzles 502/602/702 configured to provide a cleaning fluid jet spray and a plurality of flat fan nozzles, that provide an enhanced spray coverage and cleaning effect (see paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0009], [0034]-[0036], [0040], figures 5-13) (reads on claim 10); each of the outer cleaning nozzles 502/602/702 comprise a nozzle body 508/604/710 coupled to an inert gas supply 506/706 capable of flowing an inert gas flow at a gas pressure to the nozzle body 508/604/710 and to a cleaning fluid supply 504/708 capable of flowing a cleaning fluid flow to the nozzle body (reads on claim 11), wherein the inert gas flow and the cleaning fluid flow merge in the nozzle body 508/604/710 to produce a cleaning fluid jet spray at a jet spray pressure (see paragraphs [0030], [0032], [0034]-[0036], figures 5-7) (reads on claim 12). Since both Choi et al. and Lianto et al. teach substrate treatment 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 cleaning nozzle array may be included in the system by Choi et al. so as to allow for greater spray coverage and an enhanced cleaning effect, as shown to be known and conventional by Lianto et al.
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al. and Lianto et al. together teach the limitations of claim 9. Choi et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0043], [0088], figure 3 that the non-contact cleaning module 125b further comprises a rinse manifold 306 and wherein the controller 113 is further configured to: direct the energized cleaning fluid before removing the substrate, and rinse the substrate using the rinse manifold 306. Choi et al. does not explicitly teach that the rinsing occurs after directing the energized cleaning fluid. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the rinsing would occur after the application of the cleaning fluid so as to provide the expected rinsing away of the remnants of the cleaning fluid and cleaned particles.
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al. and Lianto et al. together teach the limitations of claim 13. Choi et al. does not explicitly teach that directing the energized cleaning fluid to the surface of the substrate comprises directing the outer cleaning nozzles to a bevel surface of the substrate. However, since the modified system by Choi et al. and Lianto et al. teaches all of the structural requirements of the claim and is capable of directing energized cleaning fluid to the surface of a substrate, the particular shape of the substrate 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).
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
Prosecution Insights