DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 07/31/2023 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 Interpretation
First direction is interpreted to be the same as the third direction in claims 1-8 as indicated by applicant’s FIG. 10C and paragraphs [0075] and [0086].
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 10-16 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 9 refers to the dryer as a jet air knife and claim 10 refers to the dryer having a gas nozzle. It is unclear if the dryer has both a jet air knife and a gas nozzle, or if the dryer is describing the same thing. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is determining that the air knife and the gas nozzle are the same thing.
Claims 11-16 rejected under 112(b) due to dependency on claim 10.
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 1, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) in view of Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966).
As to claim 1, Oh teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package assembly, comprising:
a sprayer device comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to direct a pressurized cleaning fluid toward the semiconductor package assembly (FIGS. 1-2 page 9 high-pressure shower unit 21);
a conveyor configured to move the semiconductor package assembly relative to the sprayer device along a first direction (FIG. 1 page 8 transport unit 10 is of the conveyor belt type); and
a dryer spatially displaced along the first direction from the sprayer device and configured to direct a pressurized gas flow at the semiconductor package assembly to remove cleaning fluid introduced by the sprayer device (page 10 drying nozzle 41 supplies ambient air and heated air to dry the substrate. Figure 1 shows that the dryer is separated/displaced from the spray device),
wherein each of the plurality of nozzles are displaced from one another along a second direction (FIG. 2 page 9 the nozzles 23 are arranged along the transverse direction of the transverse direction of the transport direction of the substrate) to thereby generate respective separate spray distribution patterns (FIG. 1 the individual nozzles 23 have respective spray distribution patterns).
Oh differs from the instant claim in failing to teach adjacent nozzles are displaced from one another along a third direction perpendicular to the second direction to thereby a reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns relative to a configuration in which the adjacent nozzles are not displaced from one another along the third direction.
Lee-966 teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (paragraph [0025] a spray module system may include a cleaning unit 100 for cleaning a substrate S). Lee-966 teaches adjacent nozzles are displaced from one another along a third direction perpendicular to the second direction (FIGS. 3 and 6B show that adjacent nozzles are displaced from one another along a third direction) to thereby a reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns relative to a configuration in which the adjacent nozzles are not displaced from one another along the third direction.
By having the adjacent nozzles be staggered in a manner that Lee-966 teaches, the nozzles would inherently reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns relative to a configuration in which the adjacent nozzles are not displaced from one another along the third direction. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh with a nozzles displaced in a third direction as taught by Lee-966. Having a staggered nozzle set is known in the art and is beneficial for spray uniformity as adjacent nozzles would not interfere with one another.
As to claim 2, Oh and Lee-966 further teach the sprayer device further comprises: a fluidic conduit extending along the second direction and configured to supply the pressurized cleaning fluid to the plurality of nozzles, wherein the plurality of nozzles are attached, and fluidically coupled, to the fluidic conduit (Oh FIGS. 1-2 page 9 the nozzles may be formed integrally with the main body, main body 22 reads on the fluidic conduit or Lee-966 FIG. 3 page 10 spray pipe 10 reads on the claimed fluidic conduit).
As to claim 4, Oh does not teach the conveyor is configured to position the semiconductor package assembly at a distance from the plurality of nozzles that is in a range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 50 mm.
Since the art recognizes that the distance is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an optimal value for the distance in Oh, through routine experimentation, and that the claimed distance would have been found obvious through such routine experimentation, unless the applicant can demonstrate unexpected results.
As to claim 7, Oh does not teach each of the plurality of nozzles is configured to generate a flow rate of the pressurized cleaning fluid that is a range from approximately 4 liters/min to approximately 6 liters/minute.
Since the art recognizes that the flow rate is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an optimal value for the flow rate in Oh, through routine experimentation, and that the claimed flow rate would have been found obvious through such routine experimentation, unless the applicant can demonstrate unexpected results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) and Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966) as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Moon et al. KR20090124517 (henceforth referred to as Moon).
As to claim 3, Oh and Lee-966 further teach fluidic conduit comprises a cylindrical tube with a longitudinal axis (Lee-966 FIG. 4 page 10 spray pipe 10 is cylindrical in shape) that is oriented along the second direction (Lee-966’s spray pipe 10 can oriented along the second direction in the same manner that Oh’s main body 22 is oriented),
wherein a first plurality of nozzles are aligned with one another along a radial direction, of the cylindrical tube, the radial direction being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Lee-966 FIGS. 3-4 and 6B a first plurality of nozzles are aligned with one another along a radial direction of the cylindrical tube),
wherein a second plurality of nozzles are located between adjacent ones of the first plurality of nozzles (FIGS. 3 and 6B a second plurality of nozzles are located between adjacent ones of the first plurality of nozzles).
Oh and Le-966 differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the second plurality of nozzles are displaced along a direction perpendicular to the radial direction relative to the first plurality of nozzles.
Moon teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (page 2 substrate processing device). Moon teaches the second plurality of nozzles are displaced along a direction perpendicular to the radial direction relative to the first plurality of nozzles (FIG. 4 nozzles are at a right angle to each other).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh and Lee-966 with nozzles that are perpendicular to each other. Having the nozzles be perpendicular is known in the art and is one of the various embodiments of nozzles on a spray bar.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) and Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Niethammer WO2018162546 (henceforth referred to as Niethammer).
As to claim 5, Lee-966 further teaches each of the plurality of nozzles has an asymmetric shape (FIG. 6b-7 page 11 elliptical spray hole 24 reads on the claimed asymmetric shape).
Oh and Lee-966 differ from the instant claim in failing to teach each spray distribution pattern has a first spatial extent along the first direction that is lesser than a second spatial extent along the second direction.
Niethammer teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (paragraph [0036] a process to produce textured silicon wafers). Niethammer teaches each spray distribution pattern has a first spatial extent along the first direction that is lesser than a second spatial extent along the second direction (FIG. 8 transport direction T reads on the first direction. The spray jet 35 from the spray nozzle would have a distribution pattern that has a first spatial extent along the first direction that is lesser than a second spatial extent along the second direction).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh and Lee-966 with nozzles that are wider in the second direction as taught by Niethammer. It would have been obvious to have nozzles that are wider in the second direction so as the semiconductor package passes underneath, the semiconductor package would be sufficiently wetted.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh), Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966), and Niethammer WO2018162546 (henceforth referred to as Niethammer) as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Kim KR102099609 (henceforth referred to as Kim).
As to claim 6, Oh, Lee-966, and Niethammer differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a spatial extent of the each spray distribution pattern subtends an angle that is in a range from approximately 95 degrees to approximately 110 degrees.
Kim teaches a spraying method for substrates (paragraph [0001] a wet etching method in which a liquid is sprayed onto a substrate). Kim teaches a spatial extent of the each spray distribution pattern subtends an angle that is in a range from approximately 95 degrees to approximately 110 degrees (paragraph [0023] the spray angle of the nozzle tip is 95°.).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh, Lee-966, and Niethammer with a nozzle as taught by Kim. It would have been obvious to have a nozzle have an angular spray at 95° to eliminate the oscillation phenomenon and also expand the spray range that overlaps with neighboring nozzles, thereby contributing to achieving uniform and rapid etching (spraying) (paragraph [0023]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) and Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966) as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of Son et al. KR20100059223 (henceforth referred to as Son).
As to claim 8, Oh differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the dryer is configured as a jet air knife configured to generate the pressurized gas flow having a pressure in a first range from approximately 0.02 MPa to approximately 0.08 MPa at a distance from the semiconductor package assembly that is in a second range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 20 mm.
Son teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (FIG. 1 page 7 substrate cleaning device). Son teaches the dryer is configured as a jet air knife (FIG. 1 page 9 air knife 132).
Son does not teach that the air knife is configured to generate the pressurized gas flow having a pressure in a first range from approximately 0.02 MPa to approximately 0.08 MPa at a distance from the semiconductor package assembly that is in a second range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 20 mm.
Since the art recognizes that the pressure and distance is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an optimal value for the pressure and distance in Son, through routine experimentation, and that the claimed pressure and distance would have been found obvious through such routine experimentation, unless the applicant can demonstrate unexpected results.
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh and Lee-966 with an air knife as taught by Son. An air knife is one of various embodiments of a nozzle that can spray air to dry a surface.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) in view of Son et al. KR20100059223 (henceforth referred to as Son).
As to claim 9, Oh teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package assembly, comprising:
a sprayer device comprising a plurality of fluidic nozzles configured to direct a pressurized cleaning fluid at the semiconductor package assembly (FIGS. 1-2 page 9 high-pressure shower unit 21);
a conveyor configured to move the semiconductor package assembly relative to the sprayer device along a first direction (FIG. 1 page 8 transport unit 10 is of the conveyor belt type); and
a dryer spatially displaced from the sprayer device along the first direction and configured to direct a pressurized gas flow toward the semiconductor package assembly to remove cleaning fluid introduced by the sprayer device (page 10 drying nozzle 41 supplies ambient air and heated air to dry the substrate. Figure 1 shows that the dryer is separated/displaced from the spray device).
Oh differs from the instant claim in failing to teach wherein the dryer is configured as a jet air knife configured to generate the pressurized gas flow having a pressure in a third range from approximately 0.02 MPa to approximately 0.08 MPa at a distance from the semiconductor package assembly that is in a range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 20 mm.
Son teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (FIG. 1 page 7 substrate cleaning device). Son teaches the dryer is configured as a jet air knife (FIG. 1 page 9 air knife 132).
Son does not teach that the air knife is configured to generate the pressurized gas flow having a pressure in a first range from approximately 0.02 MPa to approximately 0.08 MPa at a distance from the semiconductor package assembly that is in a second range from approximately 0 mm to approximately 20 mm.
Since the art recognizes that the pressure and distance is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an optimal value for the pressure and distance in Son, through routine experimentation, and that the claimed pressure and distance would have been found obvious through such routine experimentation, unless the applicant can demonstrate unexpected results.
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh with an air knife as taught by Son. An air knife is one of various embodiments of a nozzle that can spray air to dry a surface.
As to claim 14, Oh further teaches the conveyor further comprises a conveyor belt and a plurality of rollers that are configured to move the conveyor belt along the first direction, and wherein the conveyor is configured such that the semiconductor package assembly may be positioned on the conveyor belt and may be moved along with the conveyor belt relative to the sprayer device and the dryer (FIG. 1 pages 8-9 the transport unit 10 is of the conveyor belt type and transports the substrate in a horizontal direction. Figure 1 shows that the travel direction left to right, starting from the high-pressure spray section 20, going through the cleaning unit 30 and ending at the drying unit 40).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) and Son et al. KR20100059223 (henceforth referred to as Son) as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Lee KR20210058209 (henceforth referred to as Lee-209).
As to claim 10, Oh and Son differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the dryer has a gas nozzle that has an aperture having a length and a width, wherein the length is larger than the width, and wherein the aperture is oriented such that a lengthwise extension of the aperture is aligned with a second direction.
Lee-209 teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (paragraph [0001] substrate wetting apparatus). Lee-209 teaches the dryer has a gas nozzle that has an aperture having a length and a width, wherein the length is larger than the width, and wherein the aperture is oriented such that a lengthwise extension of the aperture is aligned with a second direction (FIG. 3 paragraph [0022] injection hole H2 may extend in a Y direction. The Y direction is larger than the X direction).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh and Son with an air knife as taught by Lee-209. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the lengthwise extension of the aperture is aligned with a second direction so that as a semiconductor package passes underneath it, the air knife would be able to blow air onto a large surface area of the semiconductor package.
As to claim 11, Son does not teach that the length of the aperture is greater than or equal to approximately 150 mm.
Since the art recognizes that the length is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an optimal value for the length in Son, through routine experimentation, and that the claimed length would have been found obvious through such routine experimentation, unless the applicant can demonstrate unexpected results.
As to claim 12, Lee-209 teaches the dryer further comprises a housing that is configured to allow a position of the gas nozzle to be adjusted such that an angle of the gas nozzle may be adjusted by rotating the gas nozzle about an axis parallel to the second direction (FIGS. 1 and 3 paragraph [0025] injection angle adjustment unit 135 can adjust the injection angle of the processing gas G. The rotation axis is parallel to the second direction).
As to claim 13, Lee-209 further teaches the housing is configured to allow the position of the gas nozzle to be adjusted along the second direction (paragraph [0028] the injection position adjustment unit 137a may be configured to adjust the horizontal position (Y direction) of the processing gas injection unit 133) and along a third direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and to the second direction (paragraph [0028] the injection position adjustment unit 137b may be configured to adjust the vertical position (Z direction) of the processing gas injection unit 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) and Son et al. KR20100059223 (henceforth referred to as Son) as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Kenne DE102009005966 (henceforth referred to as Kenne).
As to claim 15, Oh and Son differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the conveyor belt further comprises a mesh material having a first portion and a second portion such that the semiconductor package assembly may be sandwiched between the first portion and the second portion.
Kenne teaches a conveyor belt system (paragraphs [0001]-[0002] a transport device for substrates). Kenne teaches a mesh material (paragraph [0024] and endless metal band with circular perforations 5) having a first portion and a second portion such that the semiconductor package assembly may be sandwiched between the first portion and the second portion (Figure 2 substrate 7 is sandwiched between the first portion and the second portion of the mesh materials).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh and Son with two portions of a conveyor as taught by Kenne. It is known in the art to have two portions of a conveyor belt as it can help maintain the shape/flatness of the substrate or it can be used to keep the substrate from shifting on the conveyor belt.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) and Son et al. KR20100059223 (henceforth referred to as Son) as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966) and Moon et al. KR20090124517 (henceforth referred to as Moon).
As to claim 16, Oh further teaches each of the plurality of fluidic nozzles are displaced from one another along the second direction (FIG. 2 page 9 the nozzles 23 are arranged along the transverse direction of the transverse direction of the transport direction of the substrate) to thereby generate separate respective spray distribution patterns FIG. 1 the individual nozzles 23 have respective spray distribution patterns).
Oh and Son differ from the instant claim in failing to teach wherein adjacent fluidic nozzles are displaced from one another along a direction perpendicular to the second direction to thereby reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns relative to a configuration in which the adjacent fluidic nozzles are not displaced from one another along the direction perpendicular to the second direction.
Lee-966 teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (paragraph [0025] a spray module system may include a cleaning unit 100 for cleaning a substrate S). Lee-966 teaches the adjacent fluidic nozzles are displaced from one another along a direction to the second direction to thereby reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns (FIGS. 3 and 6B show adjacent fluidic nozzles are displaced from one another along a direction perpendicular to the second direction to thereby reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns) relative to a configuration in which the adjacent fluidic nozzles are not displaced from one another along the direction perpendicular to the second direction.
By having the adjacent nozzles be staggered in a manner that Lee-966 teaches, the nozzles would inherently reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns relative to a configuration in which the adjacent nozzles are not displaced from one another along the third direction. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh and Son with a nozzles displaced in a third direction as taught by Lee-966. Having a staggered nozzle set is known in the art and is beneficial for spray uniformity as adjacent nozzles would not interfere with one another.
Moon teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (page 2 substrate processing device). Moon teaches adjacent fluidic nozzles are displaced from one another along a direction perpendicular to the second direction (FIG. 4 nozzles are at a right angle to each other).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh with nozzles that are perpendicular to each other. Having the nozzles be perpendicular is known in the art and is one of the various embodiments of nozzles on a spray bar.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh) in view of Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966) and Moon et al. KR20090124517 (henceforth referred to as Moon).
As to claim 17, Oh teaches a sprayer device for a semiconductor package assembly cleaning system, comprising:
a plurality of fluidic nozzles configured to direct a pressurized cleaning fluid toward a semiconductor package assembly as the semiconductor package assembly is moved along a first direction relative to the sprayer device (FIGS. 1-2 page 9 high-pressure shower unit 21),
wherein each of the plurality of fluidic nozzles are displaced from one another along a second direction (FIG. 2 page 9 the nozzles 23 are arranged along the transverse direction of the transverse direction of the transport direction of the substrate).
Oh differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the plurality of fluidic nozzles comprises a first plurality of fluidic nozzles and a second plurality of fluidic nozzles that are located between adjacent ones of the first plurality of fluidic nozzles, and wherein the second plurality of fluidic nozzles are further displaced from the first plurality of fluidic nozzles along a direction perpendicular to the second direction.
Lee-966 teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (paragraph [0025] a spray module system may include a cleaning unit 100 for cleaning a substrate S). Lee-966 teaches the plurality of fluidic nozzles comprises a first plurality of fluidic nozzles and a second plurality of fluidic nozzles that are located between adjacent ones of the first plurality of fluidic nozzles (FIGS. 3 and 6B show a first plurality of fluidic nozzles and a second plurality of fluidic nozzles that are located between adjacent ones of the first plurality of fluidic nozzles) to thereby a reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns relative to a configuration in which the adjacent nozzles are not displaced from one another along the third direction.
By having the adjacent nozzles be staggered in a manner that Lee-966 teaches, the nozzles would inherently reduce an overlap of adjacent spray distribution patterns relative to a configuration in which the adjacent nozzles are not displaced from one another along the third direction. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. An apparatus claim may be unobvious even if it operates in the same way as the prior art, as long as there are structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh with a nozzles displaced in a third direction as taught by Lee-966. Having a staggered nozzle set is known in the art and is beneficial for spray uniformity as adjacent nozzles would not interfere with one another.
Moon teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (page 2 substrate processing device). Moon teaches the second plurality of fluidic nozzles are further displaced from the first plurality of fluidic nozzles along a direction perpendicular to the second direction (FIG. 4 nozzles are at a right angle to each other).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh with nozzles that are perpendicular to each other. Having the nozzles be perpendicular is known in the art and is one of the various embodiments of nozzles on a spray bar.
As to claim 20, Lee-966 and Moon further teach a fluidic conduit comprising a cylindrical tube to which the plurality of fluidic nozzles are attached and to which the plurality of fluidic nozzles are fluidically coupled (Lee-966 FIG. 4 pages 10 and 12 spray pipe 10 is cylindrical in shape. Nozzles 20 are installed in each injection pipe 10), wherein the first plurality of fluidic nozzles are aligned with one another along a radial direction of the cylindrical tube , the radial direction being perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical tube (Lee-966 FIGS. 3-4 and 6B a first plurality of nozzles are aligned with one another along a radial direction of the cylindrical tube), and wherein the direction along which the second plurality of fluidic nozzles are displaced is further perpendicular to the radial direction (Moon FIG. 4 nozzles are at a right angle to each other).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh), Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966) and Moon et al. KR20090124517 (henceforth referred to as Moon) as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Niethammer WO2018162546 (henceforth referred to as Niethammer).
As to claim 18, Lee-966 further teaches each of the plurality of fluidic nozzles has an asymmetric shape (FIG. 6b-7 page 11 elliptical spray hole 24 reads on the claimed asymmetric shape).
Oh, Lee-966, and Niethammer differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the spray distribution pattern has a first spatial extent along the first direction that is smaller than a second spatial extent along the second direction.
Niethammer teaches a system configured to clean a semiconductor package (paragraph [0036] a process to produce textured silicon wafers). Niethammer teaches each spray distribution pattern has a first spatial extent along the first direction that is lesser than a second spatial extent along the second direction (FIG. 8 transport direction T reads on the first direction. The spray jet 35 from the spray nozzle would have a distribution pattern that has a first spatial extent along the first direction that is lesser than a second spatial extent along the second direction).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh, Lee-966, and Moon with nozzles that are wider in the second direction as taught by Niethammer. It would have been obvious to have nozzles that are wider in the second direction so as the semiconductor package passes underneath, the semiconductor package would be sufficiently wetted.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. KR20070093717 (henceforth referred to as Oh), Lee KR20050102966 (henceforth referred to as Lee-966), Moon et al. KR20090124517 (henceforth referred to as Moon), and Niethammer WO2018162546 (henceforth referred to as Niethammer) as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Kim KR102099609 (henceforth referred to as Kim).
As to claim 19, Oh, Lee-966, Moon, and Niethammer differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the second spatial extent of each spray distribution pattern subtends an angle that is in a range from approximately 95 degrees to approximately 110 degrees.
Kim teaches a spraying method for substrates (paragraph [0001] a wet etching method in which a liquid is sprayed onto a substrate). Kim teaches a spatial extent of the each spray distribution pattern subtends an angle that is in a range from approximately 95 degrees to approximately 110 degrees (paragraph [0023] the spray angle of the nozzle tip is 95°.).
Therefore, 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 semiconductor package cleaner system as taught by Oh, Lee-966, Moon, and Niethammer with a nozzle as taught by Kim. It would have been obvious to have a nozzle have an angular spray at 95° to eliminate the oscillation phenomenon and also expand the spray range that overlaps with neighboring nozzles, thereby contributing to achieving uniform and rapid etching (spraying) (paragraph [0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights