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 .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
On the IDS dated 3/19/2025, the document U.S. 2007/0067395 by Semi-Tool, Inc. has been marked as not considered by the examiner because no such document exists. The actual U.S. 2007/0067395 is a document by an inventor named Blinn, with Microsoft as the assignee. Applicant probably made a typographical mistake while listing a document.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “second channel” 57 (see paragraph [0053] of applicant’s specification) and “gap” 60 (see paragraph [0055] of applicant’s specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15-28 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.
Line 5 of claim 15 recites “the side wall”. However, earlier, claim 15 recites “one or more side walls” in line 4. In the situation where there are “side walls” (plural), it is thus not clear which side wall is referred to by the phrase “the side wall” in line 5.
Line 11 of claim 15 recites “the passage opening”. However, earlier, claim 15 recites “at least one passage opening” in line 8. In the situation wherein there are passage openings (plural), it is thus not clear which passage opening is referred to by the phrase “the passage opening”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the course of the inner hollow body surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A hollow body surface might have many imaginary courses thereon, and thus it is unclear what course is referenced by the phrase "the course of the inner hollow body surface".
Line 9 of claim 25 recites “the side wall”. However, earlier, claim 25 recites “one or more side walls” in line 8. In the situation where there are “side walls” (plural), it is thus not clear which side wall is referred to by the phrase “the side wall” in line 9.
Claim 22 recites the first end of the first drainage channel as being “only being in fluid communication with the passage opening”. This doesn’t make sense because wouldn’t the first end of the drainage channel also be in fluid communication with at least a second end of the drainage channel. If the first and second ends of a channel are not in fluid communication with each other, the channel is not really a channel.
Claim 26 recites “the passage opening”. However, claim 25 (claim 26 depends from claim 25) recites “at least one passage opening” in line 3. In the situation wherein there are passage openings (plural), it is thus not clear which passage opening is referred to by the phrase “the passage opening” in claim 26.
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.
Claims 15, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo.
With regard to claim 15, Halbmaier teaches a apparatus for cleaning a pot-shaped transport containers (such as item “C” in Figures 1 and 2A) for semiconductor wafers, wherein the apparatus comprises a support wall 24 (in Figure 2A) on which a pot-shaped transport container “C” can be placed, and wherein each pot-shaped transport container comprises a base wall, side walls that form an inner hollow body surface, and an opening opposite the base wall and surrounded by the side walls (Abstract; Par. 0086-0092). Halbmaier’s apparatus comprises a passage opening formed through the support wall 24 such that a cleaning head 50 of a cleaning device passes through the support wall 24, wherein the cleaning head comprises a plurality of aperture nozzles (Par. 0086-0092). The cleaning device is configured to dispense a cleaning liquid at the interior surfaces of the pot-shaped transport container, and, as illustrated in Figure 2A, the cleaning head 50 of the cleaning device projects over the passage opening (Par. 0086-0092).
Halbmaier doesn’t recite that the pot-shaped transport container (item “C” in Figures 1 and 2A) comprises a cover support surface on which a cover can be placed to close off the hollow body, wherein the cleaning device comprises a plurality of nozzles for cleaning said cover support surface.
Kawano teaches that a pot-shaped container for wafers can successfully be closed with a cover 42 (in Figures 7 and 11) that is sealed against a cover support surface ledge (what the examiner calls the “cover support surface ledge” is illustrated in Figures 7 and 11 as a horizontal portion of the container, wherein the seal 41a is illustrated as contacting this ledge such an airtight seal is formed between the ledge and the cover (Col. 7, line 43; Col. 9, line 57).
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 apparatus of Halbmaier such that it is used to clean a pot-shaped wafer containers of the type taught by Kawano, wherein the container comprises a cover support surface ledge. Kawano teaches that such containers are used to store wafers, and motivation for performing the modification would be to use the cleaning apparatus of Halbmaier to successfully clean such wafer containers.
The combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano does not teach that the cleaning device comprises nozzles for ejecting cleaning liquid onto the cover support surface ledge of a cleaned container.
Okubo teaches that when spray-cleaning a wafer container, a local cleaning nozzle 12 can be positioned to deliberately clean a contact portion 6 that is closed with a cover to selectively close the container, as contaminants can accumulate on that ledge (Abstract; pages 3-6 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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano by having the cleaning device comprise a plurality of nozzles dedicated to spraying cleaning liquid onto the cover support surface ledge of a cleaned container. Motivation for providing a nozzle dedicated to cleaning such a cover-supporting surface was provided by Okubo, who teaches that when spray-cleaning a wafer container, a local cleaning nozzle 12 can be positioned to deliberately clean a contact portion 6 that is closed with a cover to selectively close the container, as contaminants can accumulate on that ledge. Motivation for having the cleaning device comprise a plurality of nozzles dedicated to cleaning the ledge was provided by MPEP 2144.04, Duplication of Parts, as it would obvious that more than one such nozzle could successfully be used to clean the entirety of the ledge.
With regard to claim 20, the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not recite that the cleaning head 50 (in Figure 2A of Halbmaier) has an outer shape that at least approximately follows the course of the inner hollow body surface so that the distance between the inner hollow body surface and the cleaning head is constant or almost constant. However, 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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo by modifying the outer shape of the cleaning head 50 such that an outer surface of the cleaning head follows a course of the inner hollow body surface so that a distance between the inner hollows body surface and the outer surface of the cleaning head is constant or almost constant. The motivation for modifying the cleaning head’s shape in such manner is that the cleaning head could successfully performs its role of cleaning the container while having such an outer shape.
With regard to claim 23, in the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo, the cleaning head 50 (in Figure 2A of Halbmaier) has a plurality of aperture nozzles for spray-cleaning the inner hollow body surface of the wafer container (Par. 0086-0092).
With regard to claim 24, in the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo, the used cleaning liquid is drained via a drainage channel (illustrated as leading to item 80 in Figure 2A of Halbmaier; Par. 0091 of Halbmaier).
The combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not teach that the apparatus comprises a flexible sheath that can be changed from a contracted state to an expanded state and back by the cleaning liquid and/or the drying gas.
However, in the art of cleaning, it is well known that waste material can be successfully collected in a flexible plastic bag.
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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo such that the waste cleaning liquid drained via the drainage channel is directed into a flexible plastic bag for collection of the waste liquid. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning, it is well known that waste material can be successfully collected in a flexible plastic bag. In this apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo, the flexible plastic bag is considered to be structurally capable of being changed from a contracted state into an expanded state and back by cleaning liquid due to liquid’s ability to fill its container.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. 2004/0216766 by Wen.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not teach that the cleaning head (item 50 in Figure 2A of Halbmaier) comprises a plurality of drying nozzles for ejecting drying gas.
Halbmaier does teach that container surfaces can advantageously be dried by sprayed gas onto the container (Par. 0092 of Halbmaier).
Wen teaches that when using a cleaning head 34 to spray-clean an interior of a wafer container via a plurality of nozzle openings of the cleaning head 34, the cleaning head can also be used to perform a drying step by having drying gas supplied through the cleaning head and the nozzle openings in order to successfully dry the container (Abstract; Par. 0013-0016).
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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo by having the cleaning head (item 50 in Figure 2A of Halbmaier) configured to be supplied with a drying gas such that the plurality of aperture nozzles of the cleaning head is also configured to discharge the drying gas, wherein the drying gas is used to dry container surfaces. Halbmaier does teach that container surfaces can advantageously be dried by sprayed gas onto the container (Par. 0092 of Halbmaier), and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wen, who teaches that when using a cleaning head 34 to spray-clean an interior of a wafer container via a plurality of nozzle openings of the cleaning head 34, the cleaning head can also be used to perform a drying step by having drying gas supplied through the cleaning head and the nozzle openings in order to successfully dry the container. In this combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo in view of Wen, since gas expands to fill its container, the drying gas discharged by the cleaning head 50 is considered to be able to reach the cover support surface ledge of a cleaned container.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo in view of Wen does not teach that the cleaning head (item 50 in Figure 2A of Halbmaier) is rotationally and/or translationally movable.
Halbmaier teaches that a container-cleaning cleaning head can be configured to rotate about its longitudinal axis (Par. 0115 and Figure 14 of Halbmaier).
Wen teaches that a cleaning head 34 for spray-cleaning the interior of a wafer container with a plurality of nozzle openings can advantageously rotate relative to the container in order to directly spray-clean different surfaces of the container (Abstract; Par. 0013-0016).
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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo in view of Wen by having the cleaning head 50 be rotationally moveable. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wen, who teaches that a cleaning head 34 for spray-cleaning the interior of a wafer container with a plurality of nozzle openings can advantageously rotate relative to the container in order to directly spray-clean different surfaces of the container.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo in view of U.S. 2004/0216766 by Wen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0040741 by Davies.
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo in view of Wen does not teach that the nozzle openings of the cleaning head 50 have their spray angles set by a setting device.
Davies teaches that when attempting to clean the interior of a container with a spray tool located inside the container, an actuator system can be successfully be used to optimize the angle settings of spray nozzles on the spray tool, as containers of different dimensions would benefit from different selected spray angles (Abstract; Par. 0038).
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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo in view of Wen by having the nozzle openings of the cleaning head be adjustable and by having an actuator system (reads on setting device) capable of adjusting the spray angles of the nozzle openings. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Davies, who teaches that when attempting to clean the interior of a container with a spray tool located inside the container, an actuator system can be successfully be used to optimize the angle settings of spray nozzles on the spray tool, as containers of different dimensions would benefit from different selected spray angles.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. 2023/0330720 by Kanda.
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not teaches that the cleaning head comprises infrared diodes by which the cover support surface ledge can be heated.
Kanda teaches that when using a cleaning head to spray-clean surfaces of a wafer container in order to clean the container, the liquid-based cleaning of the surfaces can be improved by advantageously having the cleaning head emit heating infrared light (Abstract; Par. 0143-0161).
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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo by having the cleaning head comprise infrared diodes for heating the cleaning liquid used to perform cleaning of the container surfaces. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Kanda, who teaches that when using a cleaning head to spray-clean surfaces of a wafer container in order to clean the container, the liquid-based cleaning of the surfaces can be improved by advantageously having the cleaning head emit heating infrared light. In this combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo in view of Kanda, the infrared heat emitted from the diodes is considered to be capable of heating the cover support surface ledge due to the ability of heat to transfer. The motivation for having the infrared sources be infrared diodes is that, in the art of supplying infrared heat, it is well-known that infrared diodes can successfully be used to supply heat.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. 2010/0319733 by Rebstock.
With regard to claim 21, the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not teach that the apparatus comprises a coupling unit for coupling sound waves into the cleaning liquid.
Rebstock teaches that when spray-cleaning surfaces of a wafer container, ultrasonic spray cleaning can successfully be used to perform the spray cleaning (Abstract; Par. 0107 and 0108).
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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo by having the aperture nozzles of the cleaning head by ultrasonic nozzles, wherein the ultrasonic nozzles couple ultrasonic radiation into the ejected cleaning liquid. The motivation for using ultrasonic spray was provided by Rebstock, who teaches that when spray-cleaning surfaces of a wafer container, ultrasonic spray cleaning can successfully be used to perform the spray cleaning. The motivation for using ultrasonic nozzles to achieve the ultrasonic spray was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning surfaces with ultrasonic spray, it is well-known that ultrasonic spray can be successfully achieved via ultrasonic nozzles that couple ultrasonic radiation into the liquid ejected from the nozzles.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of JPH11340311 by Hamada.
With regard to claim 21, in the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo, the used cleaning liquid is drained via a drainage channel (illustrated as leading to item 80 in Figure 2A of Halbmaier; Par. 0091 of Halbmaier). This drainage channel comprises a first end that is in communication with the passage opening (see Figure 2A).
The combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not teach that the apparatus also comprises a particle measuring device for determining the particles contained in the cleaning liquid.
Hamada teaches that when using cleaning liquid to clean wafer handling equipment, collected waste cleaning liquid that was already used to wash said equipment can be directed to a particle counter for determining how contaminated the waste liquid is, as the contamination level can advantageously be used to determine when cleaning is completed (Abstract; pages 4 and 9-10 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 apparatus of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo by having the previously-used waste cleaning liquid directed (via the drainage channel) to a particle counter, and wherein the particle counter is used to determine how contaminated the waste liquid is, as that level of contamination can indicate when cleaning has been successfully completed. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hamada, who teaches that when using cleaning liquid to clean wafer handling equipment, collected waste cleaning liquid that was already used to wash said equipment can be directed to a particle counter for determining how contaminated the waste liquid is, as the contamination level can advantageously be used to determine when cleaning is completed.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo.
With regard to claims 25 and 26, Halbmaier teaches a method for cleaning a pot-shaped transport containers (such as item “C” in Figures 1 and 2A) for semiconductor wafers, wherein the method uses an apparatus comprises a support wall 24 (in Figure 2A) on which a pot-shaped transport container “C” can be placed, and wherein each pot-shaped transport container comprises a base wall, side walls that form an inner hollow body surface, and an opening opposite the base wall and surrounded by the side walls (Abstract; Par. 0086-0092). The apparatus used in Halbmaier’s method comprises a passage opening formed through the support wall 24 such that a cleaning head 50 of a cleaning device passes through the support wall 24, wherein the cleaning head comprises a plurality of aperture nozzles (Par. 0086-0092). The cleaning device is configured to dispense a cleaning liquid at the interior surfaces of the pot-shaped transport container, and, as illustrated in Figure 2A, the cleaning head 50 of the cleaning device projects over the passage opening (Par. 0086-0092).
Halbmaier doesn’t recite that the pot-shaped transport container (item “C” in Figures 1 and 2A) comprises a cover support surface on which a cover can be placed to close off the hollow body, wherein the cleaning device dispenses cleaning fluid onto the cover support surface.
Kawano teaches that a pot-shaped container for wafers can successfully be closed with a cover 42 (in Figures 7 and 11) that is sealed against a cover support surface ledge (what the examiner calls the “cover support surface ledge” is illustrated in Figures 7 and 11 as a horizontal portion of the container, wherein the seal 41a is illustrated as contacting this ledge such an airtight seal is formed between the ledge and the cover (Col. 7, line 43; Col. 9, line 57).
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 Halbmaier such that the method is used to clean a pot-shaped wafer containers of the type taught by Kawano, wherein the container comprises a cover support surface ledge. Kawano teaches that such containers are used to store wafers, and motivation for performing the modification would be to use the cleaning method of Halbmaier to successfully clean such wafer containers.
The combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano does not teach that the cleaning device dispenses cleaning fluid onto the cover support surface ledge of a cleaned container.
Okubo teaches that when spray-cleaning a wafer container, a local cleaning nozzle 12 can be positioned to deliberately clean a contact portion 6 that is closed with a cover to selectively close the container, as contaminants can accumulate on that ledge (Abstract; pages 3-6 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 Halbmaier in view of Kawano by having the cleaning device comprise a plurality of nozzles dedicated to spraying cleaning liquid onto the cover support surface ledge of a cleaned container. Motivation for providing a nozzle dedicated to cleaning such a cover-supporting surface was provided by Okubo, who teaches that when spray-cleaning a wafer container, a local cleaning nozzle 12 can be positioned to deliberately clean a contact portion 6 that is closed with a cover to selectively close the container, as contaminants can accumulate on that ledge. Motivation for having the cleaning device comprise a plurality of nozzles dedicated to cleaning the ledge was provided by MPEP 2144.04, Duplication of Parts, as it would obvious that more than one such nozzle could successfully be used to clean the entirety of the ledge.
In the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo, the nozzles for cleaning the cover support surface ledge of a cleaned container are considered to be located about the cleaning head 50. In the method of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo, a drainage channel (illustrated as leading to item 80 in Figure 2A of Halbmaier) is used to drain the used cleaning liquid (Par. 0091 of Halbmaier).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of JPH11340311 by Hamada.
With regard to claim 27, in the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo, the used cleaning liquid is drained via the drainage channel (illustrated as leading to item 80 in Figure 2A of Halbmaier; Par. 0091 of Halbmaier).
The combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not teach that the method also uses particle measuring device.
Hamada teaches that when using cleaning liquid to clean wafer handling equipment, collected waste cleaning liquid that was already used to wash said equipment can be directed to a particle counter for determining how contaminated the waste liquid is, as the contamination level can advantageously be used to determine when cleaning is completed (Abstract; pages 4 and 9-10 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 Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo by having the previously-used waste cleaning liquid directed (via the drainage channel) to a particle counter in the drainage channel, and wherein the particle counter is used to determine how contaminated the waste liquid is such that the dispensing of cleaning liquid is ended once the contamination level of the waste liquid falls below a threshold value indicating that cleaning is satisfactory. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hamada, who teaches that when using cleaning liquid to clean wafer handling equipment, collected waste cleaning liquid that was already used to wash said equipment can be directed to a particle counter for determining how contaminated the waste liquid is, as the contamination level can advantageously be used to determine when cleaning is completed.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2003/0102015 by Halbmaier in view of U.S. 5,363,867 to Kawano in view of WO2020090308 by Okubo as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of U.S. 2010/0319733 by Rebstock.
With regard to claim 28, the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo does not teach that the method uses a coupling unit for coupling sound waves into the cleaning liquid.
Rebstock teaches that when spray-cleaning surfaces of a wafer container, ultrasonic spray cleaning can successfully be used to perform the spray cleaning (Abstract; Par. 0107 and 0108).
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 Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo by having the aperture nozzles of the cleaning head by ultrasonic nozzles, wherein the ultrasonic nozzles couple ultrasonic radiation into the ejected cleaning liquid. The motivation for using ultrasonic spray was provided by Rebstock, who teaches that when spray-cleaning surfaces of a wafer container, ultrasonic spray cleaning can successfully be used to perform the spray cleaning. The motivation for using ultrasonic nozzles to achieve the ultrasonic spray was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning surfaces with ultrasonic spray, it is well-known that ultrasonic spray can be successfully achieved via ultrasonic nozzles that couple ultrasonic radiation into the liquid ejected from the nozzles.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “flood” as “to come in ‘floods’ or great quantities”. In the combination of Halbmaier in view of Kawano in view of Okubo in view of Rebstock, the spraying of the cleaning onto the inner hollow body can thus be considered as a “flooding” of the inner hollow body, as quantities of sprayed cleaning liquid can be considered relatively great.
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