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
Amendments submitted on 6/11/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are pending. Claims 1, 4-6 have been amended. Claims 2-3 and 7 have been cancelled. Claim 8 has been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach a cleaning brush disposal device provided at a position apart from the substrate held by the substrate holder and from the cleaning brush storage device and removing the first cleaning brush or the second cleaning brush held by the cleaning brush holder from the cleaning brush holder, to accommodate the removed first cleaning brush or the removed second cleaning brush: Okita et al. teaches a cleaning brush disposal device (see suction source connected to Sp1, whereby switching between suction and non-suction allows for attachment and detachment of a cleaning brush) provided at a position apart from the substrate W held by the substrate holder 120 and from the cleaning brush storage device 170/180 and capable of removing the first cleaning brush 160 or the second cleaning brush 160 held by the cleaning brush holder 150 from the cleaning brush holder 150, to accommodate the removed first cleaning brush 160 or the removed second cleaning brush 160 (see page 5 of the translation, figures 2 and 12).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
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 cleaning brush storage device”, “a processing liquid supply system”, “a cleaning brush holder moving device”, “a position changing device” in claim 1.
“a horizontal moving device”, “a lifting moving device” in claim 4.
“a cleaning brush storage device”, “a processing liquid supply system”, “a cleaning brush holder moving device”, “a cleaning brush disposal device” in claim 8.
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 § 112
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita et al. (CN113327870A) in view of Sasaki et al. (JPH08282755A).
Regarding claim 8, Okita et al. teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see abstract), comprising: a substrate holder 120 holding a substrate W (see abstract, figure 12, page 4 of the translation); a first cleaning brush 160 and a second cleaning brush 160 each having a connected portion 164 and a cleaning surface 162 (see figures 4a-12, page 4 of the translation); a cleaning brush holder 150 comprising a connecting portion 152, 154, 156 that is attachable to and detachable from the connected portions 164 of the first cleaning brush 160 and the second cleaning brush 160, and respectively holding the first cleaning brush 160 and the second cleaning brush 160 by connecting the connecting portion 152, 154, 156 to the connected portion 164 (see figures 4a-12, pages 6-8 of the translation); a cleaning brush storage device 170/180 provided at a position spaced apart from the substrate W held by the substrate holder 120 and capable of temporarily storing the second cleaning brush 160 in a state where the first cleaning brush 160 is held by the cleaning brush holder 150 (see figure 12, pages 9-10 of the translation); a cleaning brush holder moving device 142, 144 capable of moving the cleaning brush holder 150 so that the cleaning surface 162 of the first cleaning brush 160 or the second cleaning brush 160 held by the cleaning brush holder 150 comes into contact with the substrate W, and moving the cleaning brush holder 150 to the cleaning brush storage device 170/180 (see figures 12, 16, 17, pages 5-6 and 9-10 of the translation); a processing liquid supply system 174 capable of supplying a predetermined processing liquid to the cleaning brush storage device 170 (see figure 12, pages 5-6 of the translation); a cleaning brush disposal device (see suction source connected to Sp1, whereby switching between suction and non-suction allows for attachment and detachment of a cleaning brush) provided at a position apart from the substrate W held by the substrate holder 120 and from the cleaning brush storage device 170/180 and capable of removing the first cleaning brush 160 or the second cleaning brush 160 held by the cleaning brush holder 150 from the cleaning brush holder 150, to accommodate the removed first cleaning brush 160 or the removed second cleaning brush 160 (see page 5 of the translation, figures 2 and 12); and a controller 11, wherein the controller 11 is capable of controlling the cleaning brush holder moving device 142, 144 in a state where the cleaning brush holder 150 holds the first cleaning brush 160, to clean the substrate W held by the substrate holder 120, and after the first cleaning brush 160 used for cleaning the substrate W is removed from the cleaning brush holder 150 by the cleaning brush disposal device, controlling the cleaning brush holder moving device 142, 144 to connect the connecting portion 152, 154, 156 of the cleaning brush holder 150 to the connected portion 164 of the second cleaning brush 160 temporarily stored in the cleaning brush storage device 170, and the cleaning brush storage device 170 is configured to maintain the cleaning surface 162 of the second cleaning brush 160 temporarily stored in a state of being wetted (see page 5 of the translation) with the processing liquid supplied from the processing liquid supply system 174 (see figure 12, pages 6 and 9-10 of the translation). Okita et al. does not explicitly teach that the cleaning tool storage part 180 is configured to maintain the cleaning surface of the second cleaning tool temporarily stored in a state of being wetted with the processing liquid supplied from the processing liquid supply part. Sasaki et al. teaches a storage container for a substrate treatment brush (see abstract) and that the cleaning tool storage part 150 is configured to maintain the cleaning surface 14 of the second cleaning tool 10 temporarily stored in a state of being wetted with the processing liquid supplied from the processing liquid supply part (see liquid injecting part); thereby keeping the brush in an elastic and soft state and shortening the time required to start up the device for the cleaning operation after the replacement (see abstract, pages 5 and 7 of the translation). Since Okita et al. teaches a substrate treatment apparatus and Sasaki et al. teaches a storage container for a substrate treatment brush, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the cleaning tool storage part 180 may be configured to maintain the cleaning surface of the second cleaning tool temporarily stored in a state of being wetted with the processing liquid supplied from the processing liquid supply part so as to keep the brush in an elastic and soft state and shortening the time required to start up the device for the cleaning operation after the replacement, as shown to be known and conventional by Sasaki et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Okita et al. (CN113327870A). Okita et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 1, including the following limitations: “…the another storage space of the cleaning brush storage tank does not overlap with the one straight line or the one circular arc in the plan view”. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
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 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