DETAILED ACTION Non-Final Rejection 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 January 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because applicant should avoid using phrases which can be implied as well as it should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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. Claims 1-2, 7-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0203995) in view of Kitagawa (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0275846) . Regarding claim 1, Kanarik discloses a passivation equipment for a semiconductor device 200, comprising: a chamber housing 201/211; a splitter 250, disposed inside the chamber housing, wherein the splitter divides the chamber housing into a first chamber 202 and a second chamber 203, and the second chamber is configured to accommodate at least a semiconductor device 219; a first intake tube 260 , connected to the first chamber, wherein the first intake tube is configured to insert a reacting gas (Paragraph 76 ) ; a plasma producing unit 233/241/239 ; and a pressure detecting unit 230 (Paragraph 83) , connected to the first chamber, wherein the pressure detecting unit is configured to detect a pressure of the first chamber (FIG. 2; Paragraphs 74-80). Kanarik is silent regarding the plasma producing unit being located in the first chamber and the pressure in the first chamber is not smaller than 1 atm. However, Kitagawa teaches a passivation equipment comprising: a plasma producing unit 13/14, disposed in a first chamber S 1 (FIG. 1; Paragraph 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by positioning the plasma producing unit in the first chamber, as taught by Kitagawa, for the purpose of positioning the plasma producing unit in a safe environment free from accidental , improper movement or damage. Furthermore, it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. While Kanarik is silent regarding the specific pressure detected within the first chamber being not smaller than 1 atm, Kanarik discloses “ The controller 230 ... may be programmed to control any of the processes disclosed herein, including ... pressure settings ” (Paragraph 83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a pressure not smaller than 1 atm, 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. Regarding claim 2, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kanarik further discloses a supporting unit 217, disposed in the second chamber, wherein the supporting unit is configured to place the at least a semiconductor device; and a heating apparatus (Paragraph 83, the controller controls temperature settings, heating or cooling, and therefore must have a means for heating) (FIG. 2; Paragraph 83). Kanarik is silent regarding the heating apparatus, disposed in the second chamber and under the supporting unit, wherein the heating apparatus is configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device. However, Kitagawa teaches a heating apparatus (:heater function” Paragraph 34), disposed in the second chamber and under the supporting unit, wherein the heating apparatus is configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device (FIG. 1; Paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by positioning the heating apparatus in the second chamber under the supporting unit, as taught by Kitagawa, for the purpose of positioning the heating apparatus in a safe environment free from accidental, improper movement or damage. Furthermore, it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. Regarding claim 7, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kanarik further discloses a second intake tube 260 (Paragraph 76, “one or more main gas flow inlets 260”), connected to the first chamber and/or the second chamber, wherein the second intake tube is configured to insert an inert gas (Argon) (FIG. 2; Paragraph 76). Regarding claim 8, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kanarik further discloses an exhaust pipe 222, connected to the second chamber, wherein the exhaust pipe is configured to exhaust the reacting gas (FIG. 2; Paragraph 80). Regarding claim 9, Kanarik discloses a passivation method for a semiconductor device 200, comprising: providing a passivation equipment, wherein the passivation equipment comprises: a chamber housing 201/211; a splitter 250, disposed in the chamber housing, wherein the splitter divides the chamber housing into a first chamber 202 and a second chamber 203; a plasma producing unit 233/241/239; a first intake tube 260, connected to the first chamber; and a pressure detecting unit 230 (Paragraph 83), connected to the first chamber; placing at least a semiconductor device 219 in the second chamber; inserting a reacting gas into the first chamber by the first intake tube; turning on the plasma producing unit to produce a high-pressure plasma (Paragraph 75-78); and performing a passivating operation, wherein the passivating operation comprises flowing the high-pressure plasma to the second chamber through the splitter and reacting with the at least a semiconductor device (FIG. 2; Paragraph 74-80). Kanarik is silent regarding the plasma producing unit being located in the first chamber and the pressure in the first chamber is not smaller than 1 atm. However, Kitagawa teaches a passivation equipment comprising: a plasma producing unit 13/14, disposed in a first chamber S 1 (FIG. 1; Paragraph 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by positioning the plasma producing unit in the first chamber, as taught by Kitagawa, for the purpose of positioning the plasma producing unit in a safe environment free from accidental, improper movement or damage. Furthermore, it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. While Kanarik is silent regarding the specific pressure detected within the first chamber being not smaller than 1 atm, Kanarik discloses “ The controller 230 ... may be programmed to control any of the processes disclosed herein, including ... pressure settings ” (Paragraph 83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a pressure not smaller than 1 atm, 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. Regarding claim 10, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Kanarik further discloses the reacting gas comprises one or more of hydrogen gas (H₂), nitrogen gas (N₂), amine gas (NH₃), oxygen gas (O₂), water, hydrogen sulfide (H₂S), dinitrogen monoxide (N2O), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), phosphine (PH₃), arsine (AsH₃) and deuterium gas (D₂) (Paragraph 76). Regarding claim 11, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Kanarik further discloses when inserting the reacting gas, the method further comprises: inserting an inert gas to the first chamber and/or the second chamber, wherein the inert gas comprises one or more of helium, neon, argon, krypton and xenon (Paragraph 76). Regarding claim 12, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Kanarik further discloses before turning on the plasma producing unit, heating the at least a semiconductor device to 100°C to 600°C (Paragraph 76). Regarding claim 13, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. While Kanarik is silent regarding the specific pressure detected within the first chamber being 1 atm to 100 atm, Kanarik discloses “ The controller 230 ... may be programmed to control any of the processes disclosed herein, including ... pressure settings ” (Paragraph 83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a pressure between 1 atm and 100 atm, 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 (Paragraph 83). Regarding claim 14, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. While Kanarik is silent regarding the pressure of the first chamber is greater than or equal to a pressure of the second chamber, Kanarik discloses “ The controller 230 ... may be programmed to control any of the processes disclosed herein, including ... pressure settings ” (Paragraph 83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the pressure of the first chamber greater than or equal to a pressure of the second chamber, 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 (Paragraph 65, 83). Regarding claim 15, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. While Kanarik is silent regarding a frequency of the AC voltage is lower than 13.6 MHz, Kanarik discloses “ process conditions, such as ... duration of pulses, exposures, and purges, plasma frequency, plasma power, and bias power, may be adjusted depending on the type of application and the type of apparatus or tool upon which the disclosed embodiments are implemented ” (Paragraph 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a frequency of the AC voltage lower than 13.6 MHz, 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 (Paragraph 65). Regarding claim 16, Kanarik discloses a passivation equipment for a semiconductor device 200, comprising: a chamber housing 201/211; a splitter 250, disposed inside the chamber housing, wherein the splitter divides the chamber housing into a first chamber 202 and a second chamber 203, and the second chamber is configured to accommodate at least a semiconductor device 219; a first intake tube 260, connected to the first chamber, wherein the first intake tube is configured to insert a reacting gas; a second intake tube 260 (Paragraph 76, “one or more main gas flow inlets 260”), connected to the first chamber and the second chamber, wherein the second intake tube is configured to insert an inert gas; a plasma producing unit 233/241/239; and an exhaust pipe 222, connected to the second chamber, wherein the exhaust pipe is configured to exhaust the reacting gas (FIG. 2; Paragraph 74-80). Kanarik is silent regarding the plasma producing unit being located in the first chamber and the pressure in the first chamber is not smaller than 1 atm. However, Kitagawa teaches a passivation equipment comprising: a plasma producing unit 13/14, disposed in a first chamber S 1 (FIG. 1; Paragraph 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by positioning the plasma producing unit in the first chamber, as taught by Kitagawa, for the purpose of positioning the plasma producing unit in a safe environment free from accidental, improper movement or damage. Furthermore, it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. While Kanarik is silent regarding the specific pressure detected within the first chamber being not smaller than 1 atm, Kanarik discloses “ The controller 230 ... may be programmed to control any of the processes disclosed herein, including ... pressure settings ” (Paragraph 83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a pressure not smaller than 1 atm, 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. Regarding claim 17, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Kanarik further discloses a supporting unit 217, disposed in the second chamber, wherein the supporting unit is configured to place the at least a semiconductor device; and a heating apparatus (Paragraph 83, the controller controls temperature settings, heating or cooling, and therefore must have a means for heating) (FIG. 2; Paragraph 83). Kanarik is silent regarding the heating apparatus, disposed in the second chamber and under the supporting unit, wherein the heating apparatus is configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device. However, Kitagawa teaches a heating apparatus (:heater function” Paragraph 34), disposed in the second chamber and under the supporting unit, wherein the heating apparatus is configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device (FIG. 1; Paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by positioning the heating apparatus in the second chamber under the supporting unit, as taught by Kitagawa, for the purpose of positioning the heating apparatus in a safe environment free from accidental, improper movement or damage. Furthermore, it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. Regarding claim 19, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Kanarik further discloses a pressure detecting unit 230 (Paragraph 83), connected to the first chamber, wherein the pressure detecting unit is configured to detect a pressure of the first chamber (FIG. 2; Paragraph 83). Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik in view of Kitagawa in further view of Su (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0308453) . Regarding claim 3, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kanarik further discloses a carrying component 217, disposed in the second chamber, wherein the carrying component is configured to transport and place the at least a semiconductor device (FIG. 2). Kanarik is silent regarding a plurality of heating apparatus, disposed out of the chamber housing, wherein the plurality of heating apparatus are configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device. However, Su teaches a plurality of heating apparatus 121, disposed out of the chamber housing 119, wherein the plurality of heating apparatus are configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device (114/”S”) (FIG. 2A; Paragraph 28-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by adding a plurality of heating apparatus disposed outside the housing, as taught by Su, for the purpose of assisting in heating the substrate. Regarding claim 18, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Kanarik further discloses a carrying component 217, disposed in the second chamber, wherein the carrying component is configured to transport and place the at least a semiconductor device (FIG. 2). Kanarik is silent regarding a plurality of heating apparatus, disposed out of the chamber housing, wherein the plurality of heating apparatus are configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device. However, Su teaches a plurality of heating apparatus 121, disposed out of the chamber housing 119, wherein the plurality of heating apparatus are configured to heat the at least a semiconductor device (114/”S”) (FIG. 2A; Paragraph 28-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by adding a plurality of heating apparatus disposed outside the housing, as taught by Su, for the purpose of assisting in heating the substrate. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik in view of Kitagawa in further view of Louis (U.S. Patent 10,692,704 ) , in even further view of Yashima (U.S. Patent 5,685,949) . Regarding claim 4 , Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kanarik is silent regarding the plasma producing unit uses a corona plasma source, and the plasma producing unit comprises a high frequency pulse voltage source, a needle electrode and a plate electrode. However, Louis teaches the plasma producing unit uses a corona plasma source (Col. 8 ln 19-32), and the plasma producing unit comprises a high frequency pulse voltage source (Col. 6 ln 1-11) (Col. 6 ln 1-11, Col. 8 ln 19 -32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by utilizing corona plasma and a high frequency pulse voltage source, as taught by Louis, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a specific type of plasma, namely corona plasma, based upon the application as well as utilizing a known means of providing voltage to the system, namely via a high frequency pulse voltage source, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, Yashima teaches a needle electrode 120 and a plate electrode 30 (FIG. 2, 5; Col. 6 ln 66-Col. 7 ln 41, Col. 14 ln 23-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by utilizing a needle and a ring electrode, as taught by Yashima, for the purpose of utilizing a known means to provide the power from the power supply to the inside of the housing. Regarding claim 5, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kanarik is silent regarding the plasma producing unit uses a corona plasma source, and the plasma producing unit comprises a high frequency pulse voltage source, a pillar electrode and a ring electrode. However, Louis teaches the plasma producing unit uses a corona plasma source (Col. 8 ln 19-32), and the plasma producing unit comprises a high frequency pulse voltage source (Col. 6 ln 1-11) (Col. 6 ln 1-11, Col. 8 ln 19-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by utilizing corona plasma and a high frequency pulse voltage source, as taught by Louis, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a specific type of plasma, namely corona plasma, based upon the application as well as utilizing a known means of providing voltage to the system, namely via a high frequency pulse voltage source, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, Yashima teaches a pillar electrode 120 and a plate electrode 30 (FIG. 2, 5; Col. 6 ln 66-Col. 7 ln 41, Col. 14 ln 23-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by utilizing a pillar and a ring electrode, as taught by Yashima, for the purpose of utilizing a known means to provide the power from the power supply to the inside of the housing. Claim 20 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik in view of Kitagawa in further view of Louis (U.S. Patent 10,692,704) . Regarding claim 20, Kanarik, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Kanarik is silent regarding the plasma producing unit uses a dielectric barrier plasma source or a corona plasma source. However, Louis teaches the plasma producing unit uses a corona plasma source (Col. 8 ln 19-32), (Col. 8 ln 19-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kanarik by utilizing corona plasma and a high frequency pulse voltage source, as taught by Louis, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a specific type of plasma, namely corona plasma, based upon the application as well as utilizing a known means of providing voltage to the system, namely via a high frequency pulse voltage source, since it has been held that use of suitable equivalent structures involves only routine skill in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the plasma producing unit uses a dielectric barrier plasma source , along with the other limitations of the claims . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ma (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0198301) discloses a passivation equipment similar to the one disclosed in the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9984 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Craig M Schneider can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3607 . 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. /CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3753 /CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753