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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 3
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawada 6,119,865.
In Re Claim 12, Kawada teaches a cover case used for semiconductor processing, the cover case comprising: a bottom section; (5, Fig. 3) a top section (6, Fig. 3) parallel to the bottom section; and at least one sidewall (sidewalls of 6) extending, in a vertical direction, between and connecting the bottom section and the top section to form an enclosed space, (Fig. 3) wherein the enclosed space is operable to accommodate a frame (2, Fig. 3), a plurality of top dies (4, Fig. 1) disposed on an adhesive tape (3, Fig. 1) on the frame.
In Re Claim 13, Kawada teaches wherein each of the plurality of cover cases further comprises a plurality of frame bases (32) disposed on the bottom section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. 2009/0152162 and in view of Kawada 6,119,865.
In Re Claims 1-4 Tian et al. teach a frame cassette used for semiconductor processing comprising: a housing; (Housing of 500, Fig. 5b) and a plurality of cover cases (400, Fig. 5b) disposed in the housing, and each of the plurality of cover cases comprising: a bottom section; (460) a top section (410) parallel to the bottom section; and at least one sidewall (416) extending, in a vertical direction, between and connecting the bottom section and the top section to form an enclosed space.
Tian et al. do not teach a frame that holds at least one die on an adhesive tape.
However, Kawada teaches wherein each of the plurality of cover cases is capable of accommodating a frame (2, Fig. 3) that holds at least one die (4, Fig. 1, 3) on an adhesive tape (3, Fig. 1, 3); and wherein each of the plurality of cover cases further comprises a plurality of frame bases (bases extending from 5, Fig. 3) disposed on the bottom section. wherein the plurality of frame bases are three frame bases. (Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of frame bases are more than three frame bases. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a frame that holds at least one die on an adhesive tape in the apparatus of Tian et al. as taught by Kawada, with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to provide stability.
Claims 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al./Kawada and in view of Chiu et al. 2023/0065892.
In Re Claims 5-7 and 11 Tian et al./Kawada teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tian et al./Kawada do not teach wherein each of the plurality of cover cases further comprises a plurality of vent holes disposed at the bottom section.
However, Chiu et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of cover cases further comprises a plurality of vent holes (130) disposed at the bottom section; and at least one of the plurality of vent holes serves as an inlet (130) of an airflow, and at least one of the plurality of vent holes serves as an outlet (130) of the airflow; and wherein at least one of the plurality of vent holes serves as an inlet (130) of an airflow, and at least one of the plurality of vent holes serves as an outlet (130) of the airflow; and wherein at least one of the plurality of vent holes comprises a filter. (Paragraph 42)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add vent holes to the apparatus of Kawada/Tian as taught by Chiu et al., with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to provide means for atmosphere changes in the case.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al./Kawada and in view of Choi et al. 2015/0206780.
In Re Claim 10, Tian et al./Kawada teach the frame cassette of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tian et al./Kawada do not teach wherein each of the plurality of cover cases further comprises: a humidity sensor configured to measure a humidity inside each of the plurality of cover cases; and a humidity adjustment unit configured to adjust the humidity.
However, Choi et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of cover cases further comprises: a humidity sensor (248) configured to measure a humidity inside each of the plurality of cover cases; and a humidity adjustment unit configured to adjust the humidity. (Paragraph 91)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a humidity sensor to the cassette of Tian et al./Kawada as taught by Choi et al., with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to prevent water contamination.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada.
Regarding Claim 14, Kawada discloses the claimed invention except for a distance between the top section and a top surface of the frame being larger than 0.1 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to make a distance between the top section and a top surface of the frame larger than 0.1 mm. in order to make sure there is space for the frame, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada and in view of Tian et al. 2009/0152162.
In Re Claims 15-17, Kawada teaches the Case of Claim 12 as discussed above.
Kawada does not teach wherein the bottom section, the top section, and the at least one sidewall are made of a metal;
Tian et al. teach wherein the bottom section, the top section, and the at least one sidewall are made of a metal; (Paragraph 67) and wherein the bottom section, the top section, and the at least one sidewall are made of a plastic; (Paragraph 67) and wherein the cover case is placed in a frame cassette (500, Fig. 5b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a case wherein the bottom section, the top section, and the at least one sidewall are made of metal in the apparatus of Kawada as taught by Tian et al., with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to provide highly corrosion resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 10 and 12-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652