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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 5-8 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 3, 4, and 9 were previously canceled.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 12/12/2025 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims as being unpatentable over Song (WO 9930845 A1) in view of Lee (KR 19990074698 A), Xu (CN 109954969 A), and Choi (KR 102032841 B1).
Claims 1 and 5-8 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pp. 5-10, filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments regarding the 112f interpretation of “conveyance unit” and “air sprayer unit” in claim 1, and “Z-axis adjustment unit” in claim 6 [see pp. 9-10], Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the interpretations. The respective claims do not provide sufficient structure (the term unit not having specific structural meaning), and the respective claims merely state functions of the respective unit(s), and thus the respective structure must be interpreted as the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the respective functions recited in the claims, and equivalents thereof.
On pp. 5-6, Applicant argues:
Independent claim 1 has been further amended to make explicit two core structural/operational requirements that were already inherent in Applicant's disclosed architecture and that the cited combination does not teach or suggest:
1. The optics and switching mechanism are contained in the in-gap scanning module:
Claim 1 now expressly requires that the collimator, Galvano scanner, focal lens, final irradiation mirror, and mirror-rotating motor are disposed in the laser scanning module that is inserted into and conveyed within the gap.
2. Alternating irradiation occurs while the module remains inserted in the gap (no
withdrawal/reconfiguration):
Claim 1 now expressly requires that the mirror-rotating motor alternately redirects the beam to the upper and lower mold surfaces while the laser scanning module remains inserted in the gap.
These clarifications remove any reading under which a system that merely places a turning mirror in the gap (while keeping the functional beam-forming and beam-steering optics external) could satisfy claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments [see pp. 5-9] that the cited combination does not teach or suggest that alternating irradiation occurs while the module remains inserted in the gap (no withdrawal/reconfiguration), including that the combination proposed requiring impermissible hindsight reconstruction [p. 8], the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art [i.e., the particular arrangement wherein the optics and switching mechanism are contained in the in-gap scanning module] cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, it has been presented that the cited prior art discloses claim 1, wherein: Song discloses laser cleaning an upper semiconductor mold and a lower semiconductor mold, wherein a final irradiation mirror is positioned in a gap therebetween, and rotated by a robotic table/arm [i.e., mirror-rotating motor; figs. 1, 3: X-Y table #50; p. 6, lines 11-21], wherein the positioning of the laser on the surface during processing is performed by the robotic structure outside of the gap between the molds (i.e., the optics and switching mechanism of the “laser module” is not “in-gap”); and wherein Lee (collimator, galvano scanner, focal lens), Xu (air sprayer unit, protective window), and Choi (Z-axis adjustment unit, sliding table unit, guide rail) teach conventional structures known in the art required by the claim, and the predictable results thereof. Although Song does not arrange the optics and switching mechanism in a singular processing head/housing [i.e., a laser scanning module] that can be positioned in a gap between two surfaces that require processing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the conventional elements of claim 1 such that: 1. The optics and switching mechanism are contained in the in-gap scanning module and 2. Alternating irradiation occurs while the module remains inserted in the gap (no withdrawal/reconfiguration), depending on requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to prioritize accuracy/efficiency, a PHOSITA would be motivated to arrange any optics and switching mechanisms as close to the processing surfaces as possible, with a reasonable expectation of success. For example, as evidenced by: Murakami (US 20190151988 A1) in the same field of endeavor of positioning a laser scanning module [laser head 4; figs. 1, 2], discloses that it is known and conventional to have optics and switching mechanisms arranged in the module, wherein the module is coupled to, and moved by, a multi-axis robot 2 [i.e., a conveyance unit], wherein the laser processing head contains mirrors, motors, lenses, etc. [para. 0003: “A conventional laser machining apparatus is known, including a laser head having a galvano scanner provided at the tip of an arm of a multi-axis robot. A galvano scanner is an apparatus which includes two rotatable mirrors around two rotary axes (X axis, Y axis) orthogonal to each other, and these mirrors are driven to rotate by servomotors, thereby scanning a laser beam output by a laser beam source”].
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
the limitation “conveyance unit” is being interpreted as an X-axis guide rail, an X-axis conveyance-driving unit, a Y-axis guide, a Y-axis conveyance-driving unit, or a robot having a robot arm, and equivalents thereof [paras. 11-12].
the limitation “air sprayer unit” is being interpreted as nozzles, and equivalents thereof [see fig. 2 showing air sprayer units #291/#292 as nozzles].
Claim 6:
the limitation “Z-axis adjustment unit” is being interpreted as a motor, and equivalents thereof [para. 35].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 and 5-8 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.
Regarding claim 1:
the limitations “the upper mold surface” and “the lower mold surface” in line 19 lack sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this office action, the limitations will be interpreted as referring to a surface of the upper mold and a surface of the lower mold, e.g., “…configured to redirect the laser beam alternately to an upper mold surface and a lower mold surface”.
Claims 5-8 are rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (WO 9930845 A1) in view of Lee (KR 19990074698 A) and Xu (CN 109954969 A), and evidenced by Murakami (US 20190151988 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Song discloses:
A semiconductor mold laser cleaning device for removing molding resin residues from a surface of a semiconductor mold of semiconductor molding equipment [fig. 1: standalone unit #1; p. 15, lines 20-23: “In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the laser cleaning process is implemented as a standalone cleaning system 1 which can be steered next to any semiconductor encapsulating tool 60 using a mould, as illustrated in FIG. 1.”], the semiconductor mold laser cleaning device comprising:
a laser generator configured to oscillate a pulsed laser beam [fig. 2: laser generator #20; p. 16, lines 2-3: “The laser generator 20 generates a pulse laser beam 2”] having
a pulse width of 1,000 nsec or less [Song discloses a preferred laser type as a KrF excimer laser with a preferred pulse width below 1000 nsec, specifically 23 ns; p. 4, lines 12-13: “Also, it is preferred that the laser pulse carry a pulse width of 23 ns (nanoseconds).”]
;
a laser scanning module configured to process and transmit the laser beam [figs. 1, 3: X-Y table #50; p. 6, lines 11-21: “In the preferred embodiment of the present invention… a mirror is positioned in between the mould halves of an encapsulating machine. The mirror is attached to a robotic arm which can precisely rotate the mirror to any angle, and which can also precisely displace the mirror in any position in the plane parallel to the surfaces of the moulds. The robotic arm is attached to an X-Y table which facilitates the positioning of the robotic arm. The mirror receives the laser beam which is directed via a series of other mirrrors.”], wherein the laser scanning module is configured to be inserted into a gap between an upper mold and a lower mold of the semiconductor molding equipment [mirror m4 positioned in a gap between mould #5 and mould #10; fig. 1: mould #5, mould #10; p. 16, lines 12-17: “Now referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, the mirror m4 is positioned in between the mould halves 5 and 10. The mirror m4 is attached to a robotic arm (shown in FIG. 3, but not shown in FIG. 1) which can precisely rotate 15 the mirror m4 to any angle, and which can also precisely displace the mirror in any position in the plane parallel to the surfaces 5a and 10a of moulds 5 and 10.”], the laser scanning module comprising:
[Song discloses a similar range, specifically that the area of coverage of the laser beam is approximately 1 cm^2; p. 5, lines 1-2: “In the preferred setting, i.e., KrF excimer laser with a wavelength of 248 nm, a pulse width of 23 ns, a pulse area of coverage of 1 cm2”; claim 5];
[p. 7, lines 2-5: “Once the contaminant for the area is removed, the X-Y table is moved to a next location and the removal process is initiated again. The process repeats itself until the entire surface of the mould is completed.”];
[Song teaches that focus length affects laser energy and that it is preferable to have very long focus length; p. 5, line 24 – p. 6 line 2: “Although the laser energy level is generally uniform over a distance, the focus length may facilitate a difference in the laser energy levels for the different depth. This difference can be significant where the focus length is very small. To avoid this problem, it is preferable have a very long focus length and to use a collimated beam”];
a final irradiation mirror having a length of 50 mm or more and configured to redirect the laser beam alternately to the upper mold surface and the lower mold surface [figs. 2, 3: mirror #m4; p. 16, lines 8-9: “Mirror m4 redirects the beam 2 onto the mould surface.”]; and
a mirror-rotating motor rotating the final irradiation mirror to change a direction of the laser beam finally emitted through the final irradiation mirror so as to clean the upper mold and the lower mold with the laser beam [i.e., a robotic arm as a structural equivalent to a motor; p. 16, lines 13-15: “The mirror m4 is attached to a robotic arm (shown in FIG. 3, but not shown in FIG. 1) which can precisely rotate the mirror m4 to any angle,”];
a conveyance unit coupled to the laser scanning module and configured to move the laser scanning module from outside the semiconductor mold to a position within the gap [see fig. 1, showing wheels and X-Y table #50 attached to cleaning system 1, configured to move the final irradiation mirror of the laser scanning module into and out of a processing position] and to convey the laser scanning module at least in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction such that an entire surface of the semiconductor mold can be cleaned [fig. 1: X-Y table #50 comprising robotic arm #52; p. 16: “The mirror m4 is attached to a robotic arm (shown in FIG. 3, but not shown in FIG. 1) which can precisely rotate 15 the mirror m4 to any angle, and which can also precisely displace the mirror in any position in the plane parallel to the surfaces 5a and 10a of moulds 5 and 10. The robotic arm is attached to an X-Y table 50 which facilitates the positioning of the robotic arm.”];
wherein the laser beam collimator, the Galvano laser scanner, the focal lens, the final irradiation mirror, and the mirror-rotating motor are disposed in the laser scanning module that is inserted into and conveyed within the gap; and wherein the mirror-rotating motor alternately redirects the laser beam to the upper mold surface and the lower mold surface while the laser scanning module remains inserted in the gap [It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the conventional elements of claim 1 such that optics and switching mechanisms are contained in the in-gap scanning module and alternating irradiation occurs while the module remains inserted in the gap (no withdrawal/reconfiguration), depending on requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to prioritize accuracy/efficiency, a PHOSITA would be motivated to arrange any optics and switching mechanisms as close to the processing surfaces as possible, with a reasonable expectation of success.].
Song discloses a method wherein the laser is scanned over the surface of the mold [see claims 1, 2, describing wherein the laser is repetitively moved over the surface, and see p. 16, lines 18, describing wherein a rotating mirror m4 is moved in a horizontal plane], Song further teaches it is desirable that the process be relatively fast, and that the speed of removal process can vary depending on the parameters chosen [p. 8, lines 18-25]. Song discloses a preferred laser type as a KrF excimer laser [p. 4, lines 12-13], Song further teaches that other laser types may be used, and that in order to produce an optimal result, a number of laser parameters, not just laser type, are controlled, e.g., power output, wavelength, pulse or continuous [p. 4, lines 3-14] and focal length [Song teaches that focus length affects laser energy and that it is preferable to have very long focus length; p. 5, line 24 – p. 6 line 2].
However, Song does not explicitly disclose:
a frequency of 1 kHz or more;
an optical fiber configured to transmit the laser beam oscillated by the laser generator;
a laser beam collimator configured to convert the laser beam into parallel light;
a Galvano laser scanner configured to scan the laser beam at a linear scanning speed of 10 m/sec or more;
a focal lens configured to focus the laser beam;
a protective window covering an opening of the laser scanning module; and
an air sprayer unit disposed outside the laser scanning module to form an air curtain around the protective window.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a semiconductor mold laser cleaning device [see fig. 1; p. 3: “As shown in FIG. 1, a mold cleaning apparatus for performing a cleaning operation on a mold unit (not shown) including upper and lower mold dies of a mold apparatus for molding the outside of a semiconductor chip mounted on a die pad with a thermosetting resin.”] comprises:
a Galvano laser scanner [figs. 1, 2: laser beam irradiator #20; p. 3 “The laser beam irradiator 20 is a galvanometer type positioned at a predetermined coordinate and irradiates a predetermined area around the coordinate.”] configured to scan a laser beam [Lee teaches the galvanometer type laser beam irradiator configured to scan a laser beam, in order to shorten process time; p. 5: “As described above, when the cleaning operation is performed on the upper and lower mold dies of the molding facility by using the mold cleaning apparatus before the mold cleaning process… shorten the mold cleaning process time. There is an effect that can improve the productivity.”]; and
an optical fiber configured to transmit a laser beam oscillated by a laser generator [figs. 1, 2: optical fiber #14; p. 4: “When the arrangement of the laser beam irradiator 20 is completed, the controller 11 drives the laser generator 10, and the laser beam generated from the laser generator 10 passes through the optical fiber 14.”],
wherein a laser scanning module is configured to process and transmit the laser beam received through the optical fiber to use the laser beam for cleaning the semiconductor mold [see figs. 1, 2, showing laser beam irradiator #20 comprising mirrors #23/#24 as the laser scanning module,
a laser beam collimator configured to convert the laser beam into parallel light [fig. 2: laser beam adjusting lens #21; Lee discloses the well-known practice of collimating the output of an optical fiber; p. 4: “The laser beam transmitted to the laser beam irradiator 20 is adjusted to a predetermined size while passing through the laser beam adjusting lens 21”], and
wherein a focal lens is configured to focus the laser beam [fig. 2: condenser lens #26; pp. 4-5: “The laser beam projected on the second scan mirror 25 is reflected and passes through the condenser lens 26, and the laser beam condensed while passing through the condenser lens 26 irradiates a predetermined region of the lower mold die 30.”].
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an air sprayer unit disposed outside a laser welding head to form an air curtain [fig. 1: gas curtain device #4; p. 3: “Further, between the said anti-splashing glass (3) and the welding plane (5) is provided with a gas curtain device (4)”] around a protective window [fig. 1: anti-splashing glass #3], the protective window covering an opening through which a laser beam is discharged [see fig. 1], to prevent contamination of a lens in an interior of the laser welding head [p. 3: “Further, the anti-splashing glass (3) is a plane lens, the surface thereof is coated with an anti-reflection film, and light transmittance is not less than 95%, for preventing welding spatter, metal vapor, plasma contamination of said focusing lens (2) and said diffractive optical lens (7).”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify semiconductor mold laser cleaning device of Song by:
including the Galvano scanner of Lee, since use of the known structure of a Galvano scanner would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, and since it would have been obvious that this allows direct control of the laser beam, specifically the angle and the coordinate position of the laser beam [pp. 4-5: “At this time, the first scan mirror 23 and the second scan mirror 24 are adjusted at a predetermined angle by driving the first galvanometer 22 and the second galvanometer 24 of the laser beam irradiator 20. As a result, the surrounding area can be examined based on a specific coordinate.”];
including the optical fiber of Lee, since the use of the known structure of an optical fiber to transmit a laser beam oscillated by a laser generator would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, and since it would have been obvious that this allows for smooth movement relative to a robot arm, as taught by Lee [p. 3: “The optical fiber 14 can smoothly correspond to the movement of the robot arm 13 formed of multiple joints.”];
including the laser beam collimator of Lee, since the use of the known structure of a collimator to convert the laser beam scattered at one end of an optical fiber into parallel light would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, and since it would have been obvious that this allows for adjustment of the size the laser beam [p. 4: “The laser beam transmitted to the laser beam irradiator 20 is adjusted to a predetermined size while passing through the laser beam adjusting lens 21”];
including the focal lens of Lee, since the use of the known structure of a focal lens to focus a laser beam scanned by a Galvano laser scanner at a specific focal length would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, and since it would have been obvious this allows for irradiating a predetermined region [pp. 4-5: “The laser beam projected on the second scan mirror 25 is reflected and passes through the condenser lens 26, and the laser beam condensed while passing through the condenser lens 26 irradiates a predetermined region of the lower mold die 30.”];
including a protective window covering an opening as taught by Xu, through which the laser beam having passed through the final irradiation mirror is discharged, to prevent contamination of an interior of the laser scanning module. Using the known technique of a protective window for preventing contamination of the optical elements of Song would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill; and
including an air sprayer unit to form an air curtain around the protective window as taught by Xu, wherein the air sprayer is disposed outside the high-speed laser scanning module, since Xu teaches that by introducing compressed air, contamination is reduced [p. 3: “by introducing compressed air, changing the welding splash in to the air curtain device (4), the flight path of metal vapor/plasma, for reducing pollution.”].
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the final irradiation mirror of Song to redirect the laser beam having passed through the focal lens of Lee such that the redirected laser beam is delivered to the surface of the semiconductor mold, since the applicant has not disclosed that this specific arrangement solves any problem or is for a particular reason, and since the use of mirrors and focus lenses are well-known and thus behave predictably. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well since Song discloses that the final irradiation mirror disposed downstream of focus lenses #30 and #35.
Furthermore, with regards to the limitations directed towards specific pulse parameters, linear scanning speed, and a length of the final irradiation mirror, in view of Song disclosing the conventional practice of controlling a number of laser parameters (e.g., power output, pulse) in order to optimize the process such that sufficient removal of contaminants is achieved while also avoiding damage [pp. 3-4: “To successfully use the laser process, a number of factors should be considered in producing an optimal result…”; pp. 10-11: “…Hence, it may be desirable to operate the laser at a higher than the minimum threshold to speed up the process… Although higher power may increase the removal rate and therefore generally desirable, it is equally important not to use a power output which may damage the mould surface beneath the contaminants.”], selecting a given pulse width, frequency, linear scanning speed, and mirror length would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a pulse width of 1,000 nsec or less, a frequency of 1 kHz or more, a linear scanning speed of 10 m/sec or more, a final irradiation mirror length of 50 mm or more, in order to produce an optimal result, as disclosed by Song.
Regarding claim 5, Song in view of Lee and Xu discloses the semiconductor mold laser cleaning device according to claim 1.
Song further discloses:
a sliding table unit [i.e., X-Y table #50] configured to place the laser scanning module at the middle between the upper mold and the lower mold, the sliding table unit comprising at least one sliding table [see fig. 3, showing mirrors m2/m3 disposed on at least one sliding table] sliding with respect to a base table [see fig. 1, showing X-Y table #50 disposed on a base structure, the base structure disposed on a top surface of a wheeled structure] placed outside the upper mold and the lower mold to insert the laser scanning module into the gap [see fig. 1].
Regarding claim 8, Song in view of Lee and Xu discloses the semiconductor mold laser cleaning device according to claim 1.
Song further discloses:
wherein the conveyance unit comprises a robot [i.e., X-Y table #50] having a robot arm connected at a distal end thereof to the laser scanning module [i.e., robotic arm #52; see fig. 3, showing a distal end of robot arm #52 connected to mirror #m4], and an automated guided vehicle (AGV), wherein the robot and an equipment body comprising the laser generator are mounted on the automated guide vehicle to convey the laser scanning module to the semiconductor molding equipment and insert the laser scanning module into the gap [see fig. 1, showing #1 as #50 mounted on a wheeled structure].
The term “automated” raises concerns about the claim being indefinite for using relative terminology (MPEP 2173.05(b)), but Applicant has clearly redefined the term in the written description [para. 40: “In addition, cleaning equipment 50 including the robot 900 and the laser generator including the high-speed laser scanning module 200 may be mounted on an automated guide vehicle (AGV) 30 to perform cleaning operation while automatically moving to a location of a mold to be cleaned.”].
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the wheeled structure of Song automatically move to a location of a mold to be cleaned, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (WO 9930845 A1) in view of Lee (KR 19990074698 A) and Xu (CN 109954969 A) as applied to claims 5 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Choi (KR 102032841 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Song in view of Lee and Xu discloses the semiconductor mold laser cleaning device according to claim 5.
Although Song shows mirror #m1 mounted on a vertically oriented table [fig. 3], and Lee shows the laser beam irradiator #20 mounted on a multi-axis robot arm #13 [p. 4: “Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 3, the robot arm 13 positions the laser beam irradiator 20 between the upper and lower mold dies 30 and 31 under the control of the controller 11.”], neither Song nor Lee explicitly disclose:
a Z-axis adjustment unit configured to adjust a height of the sliding table unit to align the laser scanning module with the gap.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a Z-axis adjustment unit [fig. 1: elevating drive unit #310; p. 4: “the elevating drive unit 310 is installed in the base portion 200 to be elevated up and down”] configured to adjust a height of a sliding table unit [p. 4, lines 6-9: “The lifting and driving unit 310 is for moving up and down the first forward and backward driving unit 320 with respect to the base portion 200, the link connecting portion 311 is installed on the top of the traveling frame 210 and the link connecting portion An elevating drive cylinder 312 for elevating and driving 311 upwards, and a mounting plate 313 formed on an upper end of the link connecting portion 311.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify semiconductor mold laser cleaning device of Song by:
including the Z-axis adjustment unit of Choi, since this would allow for moving up and down the sliding table unit of Song, as taught by Choi [p. 4, lines 6-9].
Regarding claim 7, Song in view of Lee and Xu discloses the semiconductor mold laser cleaning device according to claim 1.
Song further discloses:
wherein the conveyance unit comprises an X-Y conveyance unit [i.e., X-Y table #50] mounted on the laser scanning module to move the laser scanning module within the gap, and the X-Y conveyance unit comprises:
an X-axis conveyance-driving unit [i.e., robotic arm #52]
and
a Y-axis conveyance-driving unit [i.e., robotic arm #52].
Song discloses that the robotic arm can precisely displace the mirror m4 in any position in the horizontal plane [p. 6, lines 11-21: “The mirror is attached to a robotic arm which can precisely rotate the mirror to any angle, and which can also precisely displace the mirror in any position in the plane parallel to the surfaces of the moulds. The robotic arm is attached to an X-Y table which facilitates the positioning of the robotic arm. The mirror receives the laser beam which is directed via a series of other mirrrors.”].
However, although Song shows mirrors m2/m4 disposed on a first horizontal axis and mirror m4 disposed on a second horizontal axis [see fig. 3] and that the X-Y table #50 facilitates the positioning of the robotic arm, Song does not explicitly disclose:
an X-axis guide rail;
a Y-axis guide rail.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an X-axis guide rail [fig. 1: first guide rail #322] and a Y-axis guide rail [fig. 1: second guide rail #324].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify semiconductor mold laser cleaning device of Song by:
including the an X-axis guide rail and a Y-axis guide rail of Choi, since Choi teaches that this conventional structure allows for slidable installation of an X-Y table conveyance unit [p. 4: “The second support part 323 is slidably installed on the first guide rail 322 of the first support part 321, and crosses the first guide rail 322 on an upper surface of the second support part 323. A second guide rail 324 extending in the second direction is provided. The third support part 325 is installed to be slidable along the second guide rail 324, and the fourth support part 326 is rotatable about a rotation axis extending vertically to the third support part 325.”]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761