DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I (currently recited by claims 1-15) in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of PATENT150 recites the method steps of claims 1 and 13 of the current application expect claim 1 of PATENT150 does not explicitly say that, when the cured composition is removed from the substrate by separating the member from the substrate, a particle is also removed. However, the method of claim 1 of PATENT150 is a “particle removing method”, and Matsushima teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein (Abstract; pages 3-12 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of PATENT150 such that the cured composition encloses the to-be-removed particle such that the particle can be successfully removed from the substrate when the cured composition is removed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that the method of claim 1 of PATENT150 is a “particle removing method” and by Matsushima, who teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 1. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, the adhesion layer (of claim 9 of PATENT150) corresponds to the “layer that enhances property of adhesion” of claims 3, 5, and 6 of the current application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 1. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, claim 2 (of PATENT150) recites the subject matter of claim 4 of the current application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 3. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, the adhesion layer (of claim 10 of PATENT150) corresponds to the “adhesion layer provided on the curable composition” of claim 7 of the current application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 4. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, claim 3 (of PATENT150) recites the subject matter of claim 8 of the current application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 4. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, claim 4 (of PATENT150) recites the subject matter of claim 9 of the current application.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 4. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, claim 6 (of PATENT150) recites the subject matter of claims 10 and 11 of the current application.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 4. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, claim 8 (of PATENT150) recites the subject matter of claims 12 of the current application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,150 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT150”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. The combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima is discussed above in a double patenting rejection of claim 1. In the combination of PATENT150 in view of Matsushima, claim 13 (of PATENT150) recites the subject matter of claim 15 of the current application.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,427,552 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT552”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of PATENT552 recites the method steps of claim 1 of the current application expect claim 1 of PATENT552 does not explicitly say that, when the cured composition is removed from the substrate by separating the member from the substrate, the “entrapped” particle is also removed. However, the method of claim 1 of PATENT552 is a “foreign particle removing method”, and Matsushima teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein (Abstract; pages 3-12 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of PATENT552 such that the entrapped particle can be successfully removed from the substrate when the cured composition is removed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that the method of claim 1 of PATENT552 is a “foreign particle removing method” and by Matsushima, who teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,991 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT991”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of PATENT991recites the method steps of claim 1 of the current application expect claim 1 of PATENT991 does not explicitly say that, when the cured composition is removed from the substrate by separating the member from the substrate, the particle is also removed. However, the method of claim 1 of PATENT991 is a “foreign particle removing method”, and Matsushima teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein (Abstract; pages 3-12 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of PATENT991 such that the entrapped particle can be successfully removed from the substrate when the cured composition is removed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that the method of claim 1 of PATENT991 is a “foreign particle removing method” and by Matsushima, who teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,991 (hereafter referred to as “PATENT991”) in view of JP2016072517 by Matsushima. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 14 of PATENT991recites the method steps of claim 1 of the current application expect claim 14 of PATENT991 does not explicitly say that, when the cured composition is removed from the substrate by separating the member from the substrate, the particle is also removed. However, the method of claim 14 of PATENT991 is a “foreign particle removing method”, and Matsushima teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein (Abstract; pages 3-12 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of PATENT991 such that the entrapped particle can be successfully removed from the substrate when the cured composition is removed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that the method of claim 14 of PATENT991 is a “foreign particle removing method” and by Matsushima, who teaches that an undesired particle can be successfully removed from a substrate by enclosing it in a cured composition and then removing the cured composition with the undesired particle captured therein.
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 1-15 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 1 recites supplying a “curable” composition. In line 6 of claim 1, applicant recites “curing the curable composition”. In line 8, applicant recites removing the “curable” composition. From the context of applicant’s specification, it is clear that applicant intends for this “removing” step (of line 8) to happen after the “curing” step of line 6. The problem is that, once the “curable” composition has been “cured” (as in line 6), it no longer makes sense to refer to the composition as “curable”. In the examiner’s opinion, once a composition is “cured”, it should no longer be described as “curable”. In other words, line 8 of claim 1 would make more sense if applicant recited “removing the cured composition…” The phrase “curable composition” occurs throughout the claims. Applicant should consider changing the phrase “curable composition” to “cured composition” wherever appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2016072517 by Matsushima.
With regard to claim 1, Matsushima teaches a particle removal method for removing a particle on a substrate (Abstract; pages 3-11 of translation). In this rejection, the examiner is relying on the embodiment illustrated in Figures 9-13, but the examiner is specifically relying on an embodiment discussed in the last paragraph of page 10 of the translation, wherein the curable resin is applied to the to-be-removed particle, wherein the removal surface (which is the bottom of item “E” in Figure 9) is then brought into contact with the already-supplied resin, and wherein curing of the resin occurs after the removal surface is brought into contact with the resin. In this method of Matsushima, the curable resin is supplied on the substrate, a member (comprising the removal surface) is brought into contact with the curable resin on the substrate, and the curable resin is cured in a state wherein the curable resin and the member are in contact with each other (pages 9-11 of translation). In the method of Matsushima, the cured composition and the particle are removed from the substrate by separating the member from the substrate, as illustrated in Figure 13 (pages 9-11 of translation). In the method of Matsushima, in the removing of the particle, the member is separated from the substrate with adhesion of the cured composition, including the particle, to the member (pages 9-11 of translation; Figure 13).
With regard to claim 4, in the method of Matsushima, a determination unit acquires data that includes the size and location of the particle on the substrate, an amount of curable resin is determined based on information acquired about the particle by the determination unit, and that determined amount is supplied to the substrate (pages 3-6 and 9-11 of translation).
With regard to claim 8, in the method of Matsushima, the use of the member (with its removal surface) is determined based on information acquired in the acquiring (pages 9-10 of translation).
With regard to claim 9, in the method of Matsushima, an amount of curable resin is determined based on information acquired about the particle by the determination unit (pages 3-6 and 9-11 of translation). Since the resin is heat-cured, the amount of curable resin supplies is considered to affect the amount of heat transfer that needs to occur in order for curing of the resin amount to occur, since larger amounts of heat-cured resin require more heat transfer and smaller amounts require less heat transfer. The amount of heat transfer that needs to occur is considered to correspond to applicant’s curing condition.
With regard to claim 12, in the method of Matsushima, the substrate location wherein the curable resin is dispensed depends on information acquired about the particle by the determination unit (pages 3-6 and 9-11 of translation). Therefore, the location on the substrate wherein the removal surface contacts the curable resin is considered to be determined based on the determined position of the particle, and the location on the substrate wherein the removal surface contacts the curable resin is considered to read on applicant’s contact condition.
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016072517 by Matsushima.
With regard to claim 2, the teachings of Matsushima are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
In the method of Matsushima, the removal surface (which is the bottom of item “E” in Figure 9) is the bottom of a “plate-shaped” item “E” (last paragraph on page 10 of translation), and Figure 9 of Matsushima illustrates a side profile of the removal surface as flat. Matsushima does not explicitly describe the removal surface is flat. However, the role of the removal surface is simply to affix with the resin such that the resin (once cured) can be removed from the substrate by being affixed to the removal surface. In accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsushima by having the removal surface (which is the bottom of item “E” in Figure 9). Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that the role of the removal surface is simply to affix with the resin such that the resin (once cured) can be removed from the substrate by being affixed to the removal surface, and the removal surface could participate in such affixing while being flat. Additionally, suggestion for having the removal surface be flat was provided by Figure 9 of Matsushima, which illustrates a side profile of the removal surface as flat.
Claims 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016072517 by Matsushima.
With regard to claim 3, the teachings of Matsushima are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Matsushima does not teach that the removal surface or the curable composition comprises a layer that enhances adhesion between the cured curable composition and the member.
In another embodiment, Matsushima teaches that when using relative motion between a member and the substrate in order to detach cured resin from the substrate such that the cured resin leaves the substrate by being attached to the member, the adhesiveness between member and the cured resin can be advantageously enhanced by previously having a material layer with high resin adhesion applied in advance to the member (see second-to-last paragraph on page 19 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsushima by having a material layer with high resin adhesion applied to removal surface in advance in order to aid the removal surface in successfully detaching the cured resin from the treated substrate. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Matsushima, who teaches that when using relative motion between a member and the substrate in order to detach cured resin from the substrate such that the cured resin leaves the substrate by being attached to the member, the adhesiveness between member and the cured resin can be advantageously enhanced by previously having a material with high resin adhesion applied in advance to the member.
With regard to claim 5, in the developed method of Matsushima, the act of applying the material layer to the removal surface is considered to be an application of surface treatment to the member.
With regard to claim 6, in the developed method of Matsushima, the material layer applied to the removal surface is considered to be an adhesion layer provided on the member.
With regard to claim 7, in the developed method of Matsushima, the to the removal surface with the material layer thereon is moved down against the resin on the substrate, and thus the material layer is considered to be provided on the curable composition.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016072517 by Matsushima as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0336305 by Kurosawa.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, in the method of Matsushima, the application range over which the resin is applied to the substrate is based on the position of the particle (pages 3-6 and 9-11 of translation).
Matsushima teaches that an inkjet mechanism can be used to discharge resin (page 7 of translation), but Matsushima does not teach that the resin is discharged as a plurality of droplets.
Kurosawa teaches that when attempting to supply curable resin to a substrate, this can successfully be achieved by using an inkjet dispenser to discharge droplets of resin onto the substrate where desired (Par. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the method of Matsushima such that the resin dispensed onto the application range is dispensed as droplets by an inkjet dispenser. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kurosawa, who teaches that when attempting to supply curable resin to a substrate, this can successfully be achieved by using an inkjet dispenser to discharge droplets of resin onto the substrate where desired.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016072517 by Matsushima.
With regard to claim 13, the teachings of Matsushima are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Matsushima does not teach reusing the member after the member has successfully removed a resin layer and entrapped particle from the substrate.
However, in a different embodiment, Matsushima teaches that a resin-and-particle-removing member can be cleaned such that previously-used resin is removed from said member (see third paragraph on page 20 of translation). Matsushima also teaches that cleaning of a substrate can be performed again when further particle(s) are determined to still remain on the substrate (page 9 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsushima such that the member, once used to remove a first particle from a substrate, is cleaned in order to remove the used resin and first particle therefrom such that the same member can then be reused on the substrate to remove another patch of cured resin and a second particle from the substrate, wherein this reuse of the member again involves repeating the method of supplying curable resin to the substrate, bringing the member into contact with the resin, curing, and removing the member with attached cured resin and particle. As discussed, Matsushima teaches that a resin-and-particle-removing member can be cleaned such that previously-used resin is removed from said member, and the motivation for cleaning and reusing the member was provided by Matsushima, who teaches that cleaning of a substrate can be performed again when further particle(s) are determined to still remain on the substrate. In this modified method of Matsushima, cleaning the used member would advantageously allow the used member to once again be used to remove particle(s) from the substrate. In this modified method of Matsushima, the member is used a plurality of times to remove particles from the substrate, and each of those uses involves layering the resin on the member.
With regard to claim 14, in the developed method of Matsushima, a cleaning routine is used to remove used resin from the member such that the member can be reused.
Matsushima does not teach that this cleaning routine of the member comprises washing. However, in the art of cleaning a solid surface, it is well-known that a cleaning routine can end with a washing step wherein remaining residues are washed off the surface with a washing liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsushima such that the cleaning routine for removing the used resin from the member ends with a washing step wherein remaining residues are washed off the member surfaces with a washing liquid. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning a solid surface, it is well-known that a cleaning routine can end with a washing step wherein remaining residues are washed off the surface with a washing liquid.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016-072517 by Matsushima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2004/0137739 by Korthuis.
With regard to claim 15, the method of Matsushima is a method of removing particles from a wafer (page 3 of translation).
Matsushima does not teach performing imprint processing or planarization on the wafer.
Korthuis teaches that when manufacturing an integrated circuit (reads on applicant’s article), a wafer is polished (which is a planarization process), and that it is desirable to not have particles on the substrate prior to polishing because particles can cause undesired scratches on the wafer (Abstract; Par. 0025, 0031, 0038, and 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Matsushima such that the cleaning method of Matsushima is used to remove particles from a wafer that is about to be subjected to Korthuis’s polishing process, wherein the cleaning occurs prior to the polishing step during Kothuis’s manufacturing of an integrated circuit. Korthuis teaches that when manufacturing an integrated circuit, a wafer is polished, and that it is desirable to not have particles on the substrate prior to polishing because particles can cause undesired scratches on the wafer. The motivation for performing the modification would be to use Matsushima’s cleaning method to remove particles from the wafer such that those particles can’t undesirably scratch the wafer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights