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 without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,332,758 to Nakamura (“Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a method of cleaning a clean-up target with a spinner cleaning apparatus (abstract, col. 7, lines 5-37, col. 8, lines 11-35, col. 12, line 64 – col. 13, line 22), comprising: a holding step of holding the clean-up target on a holding surface of a holding table of the spinner cleaning apparatus, the holding table being rotatable about a rotational shaft perpendicular to the holding surface (col. 7, lines 5-37); and a first treating step of cleaning or drying a local region of the clean-up target held on the holding surface of the holding table with first fluid supplied from a first nozzle of the spinner cleaning apparatus by combining turning of the holding table about the rotational shaft through an indicated rotational angle and movement of the first nozzle relative to the rotational shaft with each other (col. 7, lines 5-37).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses a method wherein the first treating step includes cleaning the local region of the clean-up target with the first fluid (col. 7, lines 5-37), the method further comprising: after the holding step, a second treating step of cleaning the overall region of an upper surface of the clean-up target by ejecting second fluid from a second nozzle of the spinner cleaning apparatus while rotating the holding table that is holding the clean-up target on the holding surface thereof about the rotational shaft at an indicated rotational speed and by moving the second fluid ejected from the second nozzle relatively to the holding table along a path that extends from an outer circumferential edge of the holding table or an outer circumferential edge of the clean-up target held on the holding surface to the center of the holding table (Figs. 1 and 3, col. 7, lines 37-46).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses a method wherein, in a case where the first fluid cleans the local region of the clean-up target in the first treating step, the first fluid includes pure water (col. 19, lines 42-46), the method further comprises: after the first treating step, a local region drying step of drying the local region that has been cleaned with air that is different from the first fluid by combining turning of the holding table through the rotational angle and movement of the first nozzle relative to the rotational shaft with each other (col. 2, lines 6-18, col. 9, lines 1-25, col. 10, lines 39-44).
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,332,758 to Nakamura (“Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses cleaning the overall region of an upper surface of the clean-up target by ejecting second fluid from a second nozzle of the spinner cleaning apparatus while rotating the holding table that is holding the clean-up target on the holding surface thereof about the rotational shaft at an indicated rotational speed and by moving the second fluid ejected from the second nozzle relatively to the holding table along a path that extends from an outer circumferential edge of the holding table or an outer circumferential edge of the clean-up target held on the holding surface to the center of the holding table (Figs. 1 and 3, col. 7, lines 37-46), but does not explicitly teach doing this after the holding step and before the first treating step, a second treating step. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform this after the holding step and before the first treating step, a second treating step, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the cleaning.
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses a method in a case where the first fluid cleans the local region of the clean-up target in the first treating step, the first fluid includes pure water (col. 19, lines 42-46), the method further comprising: after the first treating step, a local region drying step of drying the local region that has been cleaned with air that is different from the first fluid by combining turning of the holding table through the rotational angle and movement of the first nozzle relative to the rotational shaft with each other (col. 2, lines 6-18, col. 9, lines 1-25, col. 10, lines 39-44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is Nakamura. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein the first treating step includes cleaning or drying the clean-up target held on the holding surface of the holding table with the first fluid along a straight clean-up region thereof by combining turning of the holding table through the rotational angle and movement of the first nozzle relative to the rotational shaft with each other, in combination with the other method steps as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 102553862 to Ricoh Co. Ltd. teaches a cleaning device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights