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 .
Claim Status
Claims 11 and 13-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that neither the hoisting unit nor the rotating unit of Kusuhara is capable of any horizontal movement, and that the combination of Kusuhara and Doong provides no motivation to one skilled in the art to modify the device in Kusuhara to include a horizontal movement of the housing unit and/or the rotating unit.
However, these arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kusuhara teaches a method comprising a treating step of performing liquid treatment by immersing a plurality of wafers in a vertical posture in a treatment bath accommodating treatment liquid [0050, and 0173], and changing posture of the substrates from the vertical posture to a horizontal posture after the liquid treatment step ([0050, 0173 and 0178] and figures 2-4 and 8), and Doong teaches a method for cleaning a wafer by immersing the wafer in a treatment bath including a cleaning fluid [0002], comprising the step of supporting and immersing the wafer in the cleaning fluid using a wafer holder, wherein the wafer holder can be vertically and horizontally movable within the treatment bath ([0038] and figures 7-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method disclosed by Kusuhara wherein the posture changing step of changing the posture of the plurality of wafer from the vertical posture to the horizontal posture comprises moving the wafers horizontally, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of moving the wafers to different compartments or sections of the treatment bath as disclosed by Doong ([0038] and figures 7-11 of Doong).
In addition, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, the applicant argues that if Kusuhara is modified based on the teaching of Doong, it changes the principles of operation of Kusuhara.
However, this argument is not persuasive. Kusuhara teaches a wafer separation and transfer method comprising the steps of vertically accommodating a plurality wafers in a cassette, lowering the cassette and immersing the wafers vertically in a liquid contained inside a liquid bath, and rotating the cassette to horizontally arrange the plurality of wafers ([0046] of Kisuhara), and Doong teaches a method of cleaning a wafer by immersing the wafer in a cleaning fluid, wherein the wafer can be moved vertically and horizontally within the cleaning liquid [0002 and 0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method disclosed by Kusuhara wherein the posture changing step of changing the posture of the plurality of wafer from the vertical posture to the horizontal posture comprises moving the wafers horizontally, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of moving the wafers to different compartments or sections of the treatment bath as disclosed by Doong ([0038] and figures 7-11 of Doong).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 should recite “performing a liquid treatment” in line 3, instead of “performing liquid treatment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 13-16 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 the limitation "the moving the plurality of substrates vertically" in line 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as their dependency from a base claim that is indefinite.
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.
Claims 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0006726 to Kusuhara et al. (hereinafter “Kusuhara”) in view of US 2020/0168483 to Doong et al. (hereinafter “Doong”).
Regarding claim 11, Kusuhara teaches a method for processing wafers (reads on “substrates”), the method comprising the step of performing a liquid treatment by immersing a plurality of wafers in a vertical posture in a treatment bath accommodating treatment liquid [0050, and 0173], a posture changing step including rotating the plurality of wafers from the vertical posture to a horizontal posture after the treating step and moving the plurality of wafers vertically ([0050, 0173 and 0178] and figures 1-4 and 8).
Kusuhara does not teach that changing the posture of the wafers includes the step of moving the plurality of wafers horizontally.
Doong teaches a method for cleaning a wafer by immersing the wafer in a treatment bath including a cleaning fluid [0002]. Doong teaches that the wafer is supported on a wafer holder and immersed in the cleaning fluid, wherein the wafer holder can be vertically and horizontally movable within the treatment bath [0038] (see figures 7-11).
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 disclosed by Kusuhara wherein changing the posture of the wafers includes the step of moving the plurality of wafers horizontally, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of moving the wafers to different compartments or sections of the treatment bath as disclosed by Doong ([0038] and figures 7-11 of Doong).
Regarding claim 13, Kusuhara/Doong further teaches that changing the posture of the plurality of wafers includes changing the posture of the plurality of wafers in the treatment bath (see figures 3-5, and [0173] of Kusuhara).
Regarding claim 14, Kusuhara/Doong further teaches that changing the posture of the plurality of wafers changes the posture of the plurality of wafers with the plurality of wafers being immersed in the treatment liquid (see figures 3-5, and [0173] of Kusuhara).
Regarding claim 15, Kusuhara/Doong further teaches an actuation unit (drive motor, and drive pulley) configured to change the posture of the plurality of wafers, and that the actuating unit is located outside the treatment liquid (see figures 3-5, and [0156, 0106, and 0107] of Kusuhara.
Regarding claim 16, Kusuhara/Doong further teaches transferring the plurality of wafers after changing the posture of the wafers (see figure 7, and figure 8, step 11, and [0173 and 0182] of Kusuhara).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights