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 § 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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the dry ice machine" in the paragraph in regards to a second tool head. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets that a dry ice machine, later in claim 20, is the same as the dry ice machine in the paragraph in regards to a second tool head.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yano (2024/0332036).
Regarding Claim 1, Yano teaches A system for cleaning an electronic device (Ref. W, Fig. 1) with dry ice (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a first chamber (Ref. 1, Fig. 1), comprised of a frame (Ref. 17, Fig. 1, [0105]) and a plurality of sides (Ref. 1A-D, fig. 1), wherein at least one of the sides (Ref. 1A&B, Fig. 1) comprises an opening (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) to allow access to an interior of the first chamber (Ref. 11, Fig. 1, [0088] describes an opening to allow wafer loadings into the internal space (11));
a first electronic device location (Ref. 6, fig. 1, [0088]) within the first chamber for placement of the electronic device (Fig. 1, [0088] describes wafer loading pass box to allow the wafer into the internal space of the cleaning chamber via opening 14);
a robot arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 1-2) is configured to pickup the electronic device from the first electronic device location ([0062]) and move the electronic device within the first chamber to be cleaned by a flow of dry ice (Fig. 1-2, [0062-0063]); and
a dry ice machine (Ref. 52, Fig. 1-2, [0083]) which provides the flow of dry ice for cleaning at least one surface of the electronic device (Fig. 1, [0082]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a second electronic device location (Ref. 7, Fig. 1, [0063]) within the first chamber for placement of the electronic device after it has been cleaned by the flow of dry ice ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches at least one door (Ref. 63&73, Fig. 1, [0091]), wherein the at least one door is part of at least one of the plurality of sides (1A, Fig. 1) at least which partially opens allowing access to the interior of the first chamber ([0091]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first electronic device location is a first conveyor (Ref. 64, Fig. 1, [0088-0089]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches wherein the second electronic device location is a second conveyor (Ref. 74, Fig. 1, [0094-0095]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the robot arm is configured to accept at least one removable tool head (Ref. 4, Fig. 1-3, [0068]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches a first tool head (Ref. 42, Fig. 3), wherein the first tool head is configured to pick up the electronic device (Fig. 3, [0069]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches a second tool head (Ref. 5a, fig. 1-2), wherein the second tool head is configured to contain a nozzle ([0080] describes a nozzle) in fluid connection with the dry ice machine such that the flow of dry ice exits the nozzle (Fig. 1, [0079-0080]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches at least one tool head mount (Ref. 41, Fig. 1-3, [0069]) wherein the at least one tool head mount is configured to removably secure a removable head thereto ([0069] describes the support base is attached to integrate with the arm).
Regarding Claim 14, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches an exhaust fan (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [00125]) to vent CO2 gasses from the first chamber ([0124-0125]).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibot (4,707,951).
Regarding Claim 4, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the dry ice machine comprises a hopper that accepts dry ice, the dry ice machine sizes the dry ice into a desired particle size and controls particle flow. Gibot teaches an abrasive blasting machine with a nozzle using dry ice and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Gibot teaches wherein a dry ice machine (Fig. 1) comprises a hopper (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) that accepts dry ice ([Col. 2, Lines 20-30]), the dry ice machine sizes the dry ice into a desired particle size and controls particle flow ([Col. 3, Lines 38-48], Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the dry ice machine, as taught by Yano, with a dry ice machine with a hopper that sizes the dry ice into a desired particle size and controls particle flow, as taught by Gibot, to better control the ejection rate of flow for abrasive blasting and provide optimal particle size for abrasive blasting([Col. 3, Lines 44]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and given the teachings of the dry ice machine that sizes the dry ice into a desired particle size and controls particle flow as taught by Gibot, Gibot further teaches wherein the particle flow is determined by airflow and particle amount ([Col. 3, Lines 38-48]).
Regarding Claim 15, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the dry ice machine is located within a second chamber. Gibot teaches an abrasive blasting machine with a nozzle using dry ice and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Gibot teaches wherein the dry ice machine is located within a second chamber (Ref. 6, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the dry ice machine, as taught by Yano, within the dry ice machine with a second chamber, as taught by Gibot, to protect the dry ice machine hopper and machinery and to better control the ejection rate of flow for abrasive blasting and provide optimal particle size for abrasive blasting([Col. 3, Lines 44]).
Regarding Claim 16, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein an interior of the second chamber is lined with noise reduction material. Gibot teaches an abrasive blasting machine with a nozzle using dry ice and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Gibot teaches a dry ice machine (Fig. 1), wherein an interior of the second chamber is lined with noise reduction material (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 20-22] describes filling the second chamber (6) with dry gaseous CO2 (noise reduction material) that is heavier than air thereby reducing sound within the second chamber). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the dry ice machine, as taught by Yano, with the dry ice machine with noise reduction material, as taught by Gibot, to better control the ejection rate of flow for abrasive blasting and provide optimal particle size for abrasive blasting([Col. 3, Lines 44]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pirker (5,931,518).
Regarding Claim 8, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Yano further teaches at least one actuator (Ref. 43a&b, Fig. 3, [0078] describes a motor for clamping) positioned about the second device location such that the pneumatic actuator secures the electronic device ([0071]). Yano fails to explicitly teach a pneumatic actuator. Pirker teaches a system for holding a wafer for cleaning and can be considered analgous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Pirker teaches a pneumatic actuator (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) such that the pneumatic actuator secures the electronic device ([Col. 3, Line 34-37]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the at least one actuator, as taught by Yano, with at least one pneumatic actuator, as taught by Pirker, by simple substitution since such a modification is merely an alternate structure for grasping an electronic device (i.e. wafer).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hu (2018/0056479).
Regarding Claim 13, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach at least one door sensor wherein the system shuts off when the at least one door sensor senses the at least one door is open. Hu teaches a system for cleaning an electric device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hu teaches a system for cleaning an electronic device (Fig. 1) with at least one door (Ref. 104, Fig. 1), at least one door sensor (Ref. 105, Fig. 2, [0033]); wherein the system shuts off when the at least one door sensor senses the at least one door is open ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the door, as taught by Yano, with at least one door sensor wherein the system shuts off when the at least one door sensor senses the at least one door is open, as taught by Hu, to avoid downtime of the arm and increasing throughput of the apparatus while maintaining operator safety ([0037]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brooks (2013/0336749).
Regarding Claim 17, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach an at least one input device. Brooks teaches a system for holding and moving an electric device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Brooks further teaches at least one input device (Ref. 245, Fig. 2, [0045&0047]), wherein the input device is configured to scan the electronic device into a tracking system (examiner interprets the limitation as intended use, [0047-0048] describes for mapping substrate i.e. capable of scanning the electronic device into a tracking system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system, as taught by Yano, with at least one input device wherein the input device is configured to scan the electronic device into a tracking system, as taught by Brooks, to optimize cleaning by evaluating substrates eliminating the need for a front end for substrate alignment or placement ([0009]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach at least one camera, wherein at least one camera is positioned over the first electronic device location. Brooks teaches a system for holding and moving an electric device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Brooks further teaches at least one camera (Ref. 245, Fig. 2, [0047-0048] describes imaging devices), wherein at least one camera is positioned over the first electronic device location (Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system, as taught by Yano, with at least one camera positioned over an electronic device location, as taught by Brooks, to optimize cleaning by evaluating substrates eliminating the need for a front end for substrate alignment or placement ([0009]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gagnon (2014/0226136).
Regarding Claim 19, Yano teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach at least one printing device. Gagnon teaches a system for holding and moving an electric device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Gagnon further teaches at least one printing device (Ref. 10, Fig. 1, [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system, as taught by Yano, with at least one printing device, as taught by Gagnon, to thoroughly clean the process equipment that handles wafers ([0006]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (2024/0332036) in view of Gibot (4,707,951) and Hu (2018/0056479).
Regarding Claim 20, Yano teaches A system for cleaning an electronic device (Ref. W, Fig. 1) with dry ice (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a first chamber (Ref. 1, Fig. 1), comprised of a frame (Ref. 17, Fig. 1, [0105]) and a plurality of sides (Ref. 1A-D, fig. 1), wherein at least one of the sides (Ref. 1A&B, Fig. 1) comprises an opening (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) to allow access to an interior of the first chamber (Ref. 11, Fig. 1, [0088] describes an opening to allow wafer loadings into the internal space (11));
at least one door (Ref. 63&73, Fig. 1, [0091]), wherein the at least one door is part of at least one of the plurality of sides (1A, Fig. 1) at least which partially opens allowing access to the interior of the first chamber ([0091]);
a first electronic device location (Ref. 6, fig. 1, [0088]) within the first chamber for placement of the electronic device (Fig. 1, [0088] describes wafer loading pass box to allow the wafer into the internal space of the cleaning chamber via opening 14);
a robot arm (Ref. 2, Fig. 1-2) wherein the robot arm is configured to accept at least one removable tool head ([0062]) ;
a first tool head (Ref. 42, Fig. 3), wherein the first tool head is configured to pick up the electronic device (Fig. 3, [0069]) from the first electronic device location (Fig. 1&3, [0069&0088]) and move the electronic device within the first chamber to be cleaned by a flow of dry ice (Fig. 1, [0079-0080]);
a second tool head (Ref. 5a, fig. 1-2), wherein the second tool head is configured to contain a nozzle ([0080] describes a nozzle) in fluid connection with the dry ice machine (52) such that the flow of dry ice exits the nozzle (Fig. 1, [0079-0080]);
at least one tool head mount (Ref. 41, Fig. 1-3, [0069]) , wherein the at least one tool head mount is configured to removably secure a removable head thereto ([0069] describes the support base is attached to integrate with the arm);
a second electronic device location (Ref. 7, Fig. 1, [0063]) within the first chamber for placement of the electronic device (fig. 1) after it has been cleaned by the flow of dry ice ([0063]);
a dry ice machine (Ref. 52, Fig. 1-2, [0083]) which provides the flow of dry ice for cleaning at least one surface of the electronic device (Fig. 1, [0082]), and
an exhaust fan (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [00125]) to vent CO2 gasses from the first chamber ([0124-0125]).
Yano fails to explicitly teach at least one door sensor wherein the system shuts off when the at least one door sensor senses the at least one door is open. Hu teaches a system for cleaning an electric device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hu teaches a system for cleaning an electronic device (Fig. 1) with at least one door (Ref. 104, Fig. 1), at least one door sensor (Ref. 105, Fig. 2, [0033]); wherein the system shuts off when the at least one door sensor senses the at least one door is open ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the door, as taught by Yano, with at least one door sensor wherein the system shuts off when the at least one door sensor senses the at least one door is open, as taught by Hu, to avoid downtime of the arm and increasing throughput of the apparatus while maintaining operator safety ([0037]).
Yano as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the dry ice machine is located within a second chamber and wherein the dry ice machine comprises a hopper that accepts dry ice, the dry ice machine sizes the dry ice into a desired particle size and controls particle flow. Gibot teaches an abrasive blasting machine with a nozzle using dry ice and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Gibot teaches wherein a dry ice machine (Fig. 1) located within a second chamber (Ref. 6, Fig. 1), wherein the drive ice machine comprises a hopper (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) that accepts dry ice ([Col. 2, Lines 20-30]), the dry ice machine sizes the dry ice into a desired particle size and controls particle flow ([Col. 3, Lines 38-48], Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the dry ice machine, as taught by Yano as modified, within the dry ice machine with a second chamber and hopper, as taught by Gibot, to protect the dry ice machine hopper and machinery and to better control the ejection rate of flow for abrasive blasting and provide optimal particle size for abrasive blasting([Col. 3, Lines 44]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hartshorne (2,079,854), Muthuveerappan (12,202,092), and Jackson (7,134,946) teach systems for cleaning an electronic device and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights