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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicants amended claims 11-17 and request examination of the referenced claims together with elected claims. This is not found persuasive because the elected claims and the newly amended claims are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of elected claims 1-10 and 18-20 and amended claims 11-17 are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because it does not require at least “acquiring sensor data indicative of pH over time”. The subcombination has separate utility such as a method for rinsing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 3, 6-9 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.
Claim 3 is indefinite and could not be properly understood because the term “the differential difference of the senor data” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 6-8 are indefinite and could not be properly understood.
First, the claims are incomplete because claim 6 recites determining the rinse stopping time based on “a moving average”, “moving mean”, “convolution” of the denoised sensor data, but fail to recite any step to determine the referenced “a moving average”, “moving mean”, “convolution”.
Second, the term “the sensor data measured by each sensor” in claim 7 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Third, the term “the denoised sensor data measured by the plurality sensors” in claim 7 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Fourth, claims 7-8 are incomplete because claim 7 recites determining the rinse stopping time based on “a moving average”, “moving mean”, “convolution” of “the combined sensor data”, but fail to recite any step to determine the referenced “a moving average”, “moving mean”, “convolution”.
Fifth, it is not clear from claims 6 and 7 what is referenced as “a moving average”, “moving mean”, “convolution” of the sensor data.
Claim 9 is indefinite and could not be properly understood because the term “the tank used for the rinsing” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further it is not clear how the item can be transferred “to the tank used for rinsing” “before the rinsing”.
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.
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 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) 1-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al (US 7,596,886) in view of Wang et al (US 2019/0143481).
As to claims 1 and 18:
Boyd et al teach a method comprising:
Performing at least one cleaning operation including immersing an item in acidic or alkaline solution (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30);
Rinsing the item and measuring the pH of the rinsing liquid (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30);
Determining a rinse stopping time based on the sensor data (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30);
Automatically stopping the rinsing (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30).
Please, note that “an item to be cleaned” recited by the claims is readable on both wafers processed by the method of Boyd et al and the parts of the apparatus of Boyd et al.
Thus, Boyd et al teach a method as claimed except for the specific recitation of the use of water for rinsing.
However, Boyd et al teach the use of rinsing with a neutral pH (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30). Thus, it is reasonably believed that Boyd et al clearly encompass the use of water for rinsing.
Moreover, water is well known to be used for rinsing in the industry, as evidenced by Wang et al (at least [0004], [0014]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to use water for rinsing in the method of Boyd et al in order to use a known chemical for its known purpose.
As to claims 2, 5, 19:
The use of the sensor data indicative pH is disclosed by Boyd et al (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30).
As to claim 3:
The stopping as claimed is disclosed at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30. Please, note that the claim is indefinite and could not be properly understood, for the reasons provided above. Please, also note that claim does not define the threshold range, but merely states that the range includes zero. Thus, any range of the threshold is in the scope of the claim.
As to claims 4 and 20:
The use of the sensor data as claimed is disclosed at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30.
As to claims 6-8:
The claims are indefinite and could not be properly understood for the reasons provided above.
It appears that the applicants are trying to claim an automation process.
Boyd et al teach the use of a controller 351 to automate process (at least column 6, line 43 – column 9, line 16).
Thus, it is reasonably believed that what is recited by claims 6-8 is obvious over the teaching of Boyd et al.
As to claims 9 and 10:
Boyd et al disclose the use of hydrofluoric acid (HF/water) as claimed (at least column 7, line 58 – column 8, line 30).
Further, as to claim 9:
Boyd et al do not limit the process to any specific sequence. Since, the claim is written in the open language “comprising” and therefore does not exclude any additional steps between the recited “cleaning operation” and “the rinsing” and since the processing of semiconductor substrates comprises multiple processing steps including cleaning and rinsing it appears that what is claimed is obvious over the teaching of Boyd et al.
Further, as to claim 10:
Boyd et al do not specify the wafers processed by the method. They do not limit the use of the method to any specific wafer.
On the other hand, Wang et al teach that wafers comprising silicon carbide were known in the art (at least [0037]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to apply the method of Boyd et al to a known wafers comprising silicon carbide in order to use a known method to process known substrates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to cleaning methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights