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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 2/24/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 15, 17 have been amended. Claim 21 has been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/26 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Yang et al. (CN110416127A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 15 on which it depends, since claim 15 already requires that the cleaning chamber be configured to receive the tray that accommodates the plurality of semiconductor packages therein. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN110718488A) in view of Yang et al. (CN110416127A).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Liu et al. teaches a cleaning apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a cleaning chamber configured to receive a tray 24 (see pages 4-5 of the translation, figures 2-4), the tray 24 being capable of receiving a plurality of objects (see portion 251 being capable of receiving a plurality of wafers, which reads on semiconductor packages of claim 14); a vacuum generator 26 capable of applying a vacuum into the cleaning chamber and fixing a lower surface of the tray 24 (see pages 4-5 of the translation, figure 4); and an air injection module 30 comprising a nozzle block 30 comprising nozzle hole 301 capable of injecting air to an upper surface of the tray 24 (see pages 4-5 of the translation, figures 2-4). Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the nozzle block comprises a plurality of nozzle holes, wherein the nozzle block is configured to rotatably inject air through the plurality of nozzle holes. Yang et al. teaches a substrate cleaning system comprising a nozzle block 8 with a plurality of nozzle holes, wherein the nozzle block 8 is configured to rotatably inject fluid through the plurality of nozzle holes; thereby allowing for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency (see pages 4, 7-8 of the translation). Since both Liu et al. and Yang et al. teach substrate cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the nozzle block in the system by Liu et al. may include a plurality of nozzle holes and may be rotatable so as to allow for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency, as shown to be known and conventional by Yang et al.
Claims 1-4, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. (US20070199580) and Yang et al. (CN110416127A).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 14, Hasebe et al. teaches a cleaning apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a cleaning chamber configured to receive a tray 31 (see figures 1-3, 5, paragraph [0022]), the tray 31 is capable of receiving a plurality of semiconductor packages 20 (see figures 1-3, 5, paragraph [0022]) (reads on claim 14); a vacuum generator 16 capable of applying a vacuum into the cleaning chamber and fixing a lower surface of the tray 31 (see paragraph [0022], figures 3, 5); and an air injection module 13 comprising a nozzle block 13 comprising a plurality of nozzle holes (see outlets of 13b, as shown in figures 5-6) configured to inject air to an upper surface of the tray 31 (see figures 1, 5, 6, paragraphs [0038], [0045]) (reads on claim 1); a vibration applier 11a may be configured to apply a vibration to the tray 31 (see abstract, figures 3, 5, paragraph [0022]) (reads on claim 12). Hasebe et al. does not teach that the nozzle block is configured to rotatably inject air through the plurality of nozzle holes. Yang et al. teaches a substrate cleaning system comprising a nozzle block 8 with a plurality of nozzle holes, wherein the nozzle block 8 is configured to rotatably inject fluid through the plurality of nozzle holes; thereby allowing for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency (see pages 4, 7-8 of the translation). Since both Hasebe et al. and Yang et al. teach substrate cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the nozzle block in the system by Hasebe et al. may be rotatable so as to allow for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency, as shown to be known and conventional by Yang et al.
Regarding claims 2-4, Hasebe et al. and Yang et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Hasebe et al. also teaches that the cleaning chamber comprises: a lower chamber (see space in 11b) connected to the vacuum generator 16 and configured to receive the vacuum and to make contact with the lower surface of the tray 31 (see figures 1, 3, 5-6, paragraphs [0022], [0029]-[0030]); and an upper chamber 23 combined with the lower chamber and configured to receive the air injection module 13b (reads on claim 2); a lower exhaust port connected to the vacuum generator 16 and making contact with the lower surface of the tray 31 (see figures 1, 3, 5-6, paragraphs [0022], [0029]-[0030]) (reads on claim 3); the upper chamber 23 including an upper exhaust port 13a arranged at an upper surface of the upper chamber 23 (see figures 1, 5-6, paragraphs [0023]-[0024], [0035]-[0036]) (reads on claim 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. (US20070199580) and Yang et al. (CN110416127A) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Dong et al. (KR20220000689A).
Regarding claim 5, Hasebe et al. and Yang et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Hasebe et al. also teaches in figures 1, 5, 6, paragraphs [0038], [0045] that the air injection module 13b comprises: a nozzle (see outlet portion of 13b as shown in figures 1, 5, 6) arranged over the tray 31 and configured to inject the air to the upper surface of the tray 31; an air line (see piping upstream of the outlet of 13b) configured to supply the air to the nozzle; a compressor (inherent since the air supplied to 13b is pressurized air) arranged on the air line and configured to provide the air with a pressure. Hasebe et al. does not teach a pulse generator arranged on the air line and configured to provide the air with a pulse. Dong et al. teaches a cleaning apparatus (see abstract) and a pulse generator 130 arranged on the air line and configured to provide the air with a pulse, so as to improve the cleaning quality and prevent damage to the substrate as well as preventing the scattering of foreign matter (see abstract, pages 3 and 5 of the translation). Since both Hasebe et al. and Dong et al. teach substrate cleaning apparatuses it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a pulse generator may be included in the system by Hasebe et al. so as to improve the quality of cleaning and prevent damage to the substrate as well as preventing the scattering of foreign matter, as shown to be known and conventional by Dong et al.
Claims 9-11, 15-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. (US20070199580) and Yang et al. (CN110416127A) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Li (KR102488045B1).
Regarding claims 9-11, 15, 19 and 21, Hasebe et al. teaches a cleaning apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a cleaning chamber configured to receive a tray 31 (see figures 1-3, 5, paragraph [0022]), the tray 31 is capable of receiving a plurality of objects 20 (see figures 1-3, 5, paragraph [0022], the tray 31 is capable of receiving a plurality of semiconductor packages) (reads on claim 21)); a vacuum generator 16 capable of applying a vacuum into the cleaning chamber and fixing a lower surface of the tray 31 (see paragraph [0022], figures 3, 5); and an air injection module 13 comprising a nozzle block 13 comprising a plurality of nozzle holes (see outlets of 13b as shown in figures 5-6) configured to inject air to an upper surface of the tray 31 (see figures 1, 5, 6, paragraphs [0038], [0045]); a vibration applier 11a may be configured to apply a vibration to the tray 31 (see abstract, figures 3, 5, paragraph [0022]). Hasebe et al. does not teach that the nozzle block is configured to rotatably inject air through the plurality of nozzle holes. Yang et al. teaches a substrate cleaning system comprising a nozzle block 8 with a plurality of nozzle holes, wherein the nozzle block 8 is configured to rotatably inject fluid through the plurality of nozzle holes; thereby allowing for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency (see pages 4, 7-8 of the translation). Since both Hasebe et al. and Yang et al. teach substrate cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the nozzle block in the system by Hasebe et al. may be rotatable so as to allow for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency, as shown to be known and conventional by Yang et al. (reads on claim 15). Hasebe et al. does not teach a mesh cover configured to fix the upper surface of the tray. Li teaches a cleaning device (see abstract) and that a mesh cover 120, GH may be configured to fix the upper surface of the tray 140 so as to prevent the substrates from being detached from the tray 140 during the application of fluids as well as providing anti-static properties that prevent shock and/or electrical damage to substrates; the mesh cover 120, GH comprises: a mesh 120, GH configured to cover the upper surface of the tray 140; and a mesh frame 112 configured to support an edge portion of the mesh 120, GH (see pages 3-4 of the translation, figures 1, 2b, 2d) (reads on claim 10); the mesh cover further comprises: a lower frame (see frame forming part of 130 and disposed below and supporting 112 as shown in figure 2b) configured to support a lower surface of the mesh frame 112; and an upper frame (see frame forming part of 130 and disposed above and supporting 112 as shown in figures 2a and 2b) configured to support an upper surface of the mesh frame (see pages 3-4 of the translation, figures 1, 2a, 2b, 2d) (reads on claims 11 and 19). Since both Hasebe et al. and Li teach substrate cleaning devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a mesh cover may be included to fix the upper surface of the tray in the system by Hasebe et al. so as to prevent substrates from detaching from the tray as well as preventing shock and electrical damage to the substrates, as shown to be known and conventional by Li.
Regarding claim 16, Hasebe et al., Yang et al. and Li together teach the limitations of claim 15. Hasebe et al. also teaches that the cleaning chamber comprises: a lower chamber (see space in 11b) including a lower exhaust port connected to the vacuum generator 16 and making contact with the lower surface of the tray 31 (see figures 1, 3, 5-6, paragraphs [0022], [0029]-[0030]); and an upper chamber 23 combined with the lower chamber and configured to receive the air injection module 13b, the upper chamber 23 including an upper exhaust port 13a (see figures 1, 5-6, paragraphs [0023]-[0024], [0035]-[0036]). Hence, it is readily apparent that in the modified system including a mesh cover on the upper surface of the tray, the upper chamber 23 that is disposed above the tray 31 would be configured to receive the mesh cover.
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN110718488A) in view of Hasebe et al. (US20070199580), Yang et al. (CN110416127A) and Li (KR102488045B1).
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Liu et al. teaches a cleaning apparatus (see abstract) comprising: a cleaning chamber configured to receive a tray 24 (see pages 4-5 of the translation, figures 2-4), the tray 24 being capable of receiving a plurality of semiconductor packages (see portion 251 being capable of receiving a plurality of wafers) (reads on claim 21); a vacuum generator 26 capable of applying a vacuum into the cleaning chamber and fixing a lower surface of the tray 24 (see pages 4-5 of the translation, figure 4); and an air injection module 30 comprising a nozzle block 31 comprising a nozzle hole 301 capable of injecting air to an upper surface of the tray 24 (see pages 4-5 of the translation, figures 2-4). Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the nozzle block comprises a plurality of nozzle holes, wherein the nozzle block is configured to rotatably inject air through the plurality of nozzle holes. Yang et al. teaches a substrate cleaning system comprising a nozzle block 8 with a plurality of nozzle holes, wherein the nozzle block 8 is configured to rotatably inject fluid through the plurality of nozzle holes; thereby allowing for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency (see pages 4, 7-8 of the translation). Since both Liu et al. and Yang et al. teach substrate cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the nozzle block in the system by Liu et al. may include a plurality of nozzle holes and may be rotatable so as to allow for a greater cleaning area and cleaning efficiency, as shown to be known and conventional by Yang et al. Liu et al. does not teach a mesh cover configured to fix the upper surface of the tray. Li teaches a cleaning device (see abstract) and that a mesh cover 120, GH may be configured to fix the upper surface of the tray 140 so as to prevent the substrates from being detached from the tray 140 during the application of fluids as well as providing anti-static properties that prevent shock and/or electrical damage to substrates (see pages 3-4 of the translation, figures 1, 2b, 2d). Since both Liu et al. and Li teach substrate cleaning devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a mesh cover may be included to fix the upper surface of the tray in the system by Liu et al. so as to prevent substrates from detaching from the tray as well as preventing shock and electrical damage to the substrates, as shown to be known and conventional by Li. Liu et al. does not teach a vibration applier configured to apply a vibration to the tray. Hasebe et al. teaches a substrate cleaning device (see abstract) and that a vibration applier 11a may be configured to apply a vibration to the tray 31 so as to provide a substrate cleaning effect (see abstract, figures 3, 5, paragraph [0022]). Since both Liu et al. and Hasebe et al. teach substrate cleaning devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a vibration applier may be included in the system by Liu et al. so as to provide a substrate cleaning effect, as shown to be known and conventional by Hasebe et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 13, 17-18, 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Hasebe et al. (US20070199580). Hasebe et al. fails to teach/disclose all of the limitations of claims 6, 13, 17 and 20. Furthermore, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part along with the requisite motivation for combination to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
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 TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711