DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,636,724 (reference patent). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the reference patent with the subject matter of both of claims 2 and 3 of the reference patent because claims 2 and 3 are directed to the same embodiment as that of claim 1 of the reference patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims only differ in slight language choices: for example, the phrase “oscillating differential pressure variation cleaning” of the instant application corresponds to the “intermittent fluctuation cleaning” of the reference patent. For example, the phrase “differential pressure variation gas flow” of the instant application corresponds to the “fluctuation airflow” of the reference patent.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW201639049 by Hong in view of KR102448321 to Lee.
With regard to claims 1 and 3, Hong teaches a method of cleaning a circuit substrate (comprising item 330 in Figures 3B-3F; reads on bottom plate) in a flip-chip packing process, wherein the method comprises welding conductive bumps (items 320 in Figures 3A and 3D-3F; these bumps 320 read on at least one solder-attachable component) onto said circuit substrate (reads on applicant’s adjacent bottom plate because the circuit substate is adjacent to the conductive bumps; Abstract; pages 6-7 of translation). Hong teaches that flux (a coating of flux is labeled as item 341 in Figure 3C) dispensed onto pads (items 332 in Figures 3B and 3C of the bottom plate) is used to perform the welding, and Hong’s cleaning method serves to dissolve “flux residue” (pages 6-7 of translation). Hong’s method involves filling primer liquid (item 410 in Figures 3E and 3F) between the adjacent bottom plate and the conductive bumps such the flux residue is covered by the primer (pages 6-7 of translation). In Hong’s method, the primer liquid (item 410 in Hong’s Figures 3E and 3F) is an underfill comprising epoxy resin with cerium oxide particles (one of which reads on applicant’s particle) therein (Abstract of Hong and pages 5 and 7 of Hong translation). The bottom plate and the primer thereon are then placed in a chamber, as illustrated in Figure 3F (pages 6-7 of translation). Then, the chamber temperature is controlled to be in the range of 20 to 500 °C (pages 6-7 of translation). In the chamber, oscillating differential pressure variation cleaning is performed by oscillating the pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm such that the flux residue is cleaned away by being dissolved into the primer (pages 6-7 of translation).
Hong’s temperature range of 20 to 500 °C is broader than applicant’s recited range of 25 to 200 °C. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, applicant’s recited range is considered to be obvious due to the overlap of the ranges. If this overlapping ranges argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: the temperature to which a chamber is heated is clearly a result-effective variable in the sense that heating something to a high temperature requires energy, and therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Hong such that the temperature to which the chamber is heated is optimized, as the temperature needs to be high enough for Hong’s process to be effective while also not being so high that energy is needlessly being wasted.
In the method of Hong, the oscillating differential pressure variation (between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm) is performed in the chamber illustrated in Hong’s Figure 3F. Hong does not explicitly teach that this oscillation is achieved using a vacuum generator.
Lee teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure (Abstract; pages 3-6 of translation).
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 method of Hong such that the oscillating different pressure variation is achieved using a vacuum means (reads on vacuum generator) connected to the chamber, a pressurizing means for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measured data of the chamber’s internal pressure. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure.
The combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches that the dissolving of flux residue into the primer liquid involves oscillating the chamber pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm. The combination of Hong view of Lee does not teach applicant’s range of a maximum of 1 atm and a minimum of 10-5 atm. However, in the method of Hong in view of Lee, the uppermost pressure to which the chamber is pressurized is clearly a result-effective variable because it affects how much pressurized gas is required to pressurize (via the pressurizing means) the chamber. Further, in the method of Hong in view of Lee, the lowermost pressure to which the chamber is vacuumed is a result-effective variable because it affects how much work/energy (creating a vacuum in a space is well known to require work/energy) is required to complete each vacuuming of the chamber down to the lowermost pressure. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Hong in view of Lee by optimizing the range of pressures used in the pressure-oscillating step, as the uppermost pressure and lowermost pressure are both result-effective variables, and as the flip-chip packing and removal of flux still need to successfully occur in the method of Hong in view of Lee. Motivation for such optimization is simply the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon a known process.
In this combination of Hong in view of Lee, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that the oscillating differential pressure results in a “differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the increase of pressure after vacuuming the chamber down to its lowermost pressure can be considered to read on applicant’s subsequently released because a vacuum force is being released by the increase in pressure.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW201639049 by Hong in view of KR102448321 to Lee.
With regard to claims 4 and 6, Hong teaches a method of cleaning a circuit substrate (comprising item 330 in Figures 3B-3F; reads on bottom plate) in a flip-chip packing process, wherein the method comprises welding conductive bumps (items 320 in Figures 3A and 3D-3F; these bumps 320 read on at least one solder-attachable component) onto said circuit substrate (reads on applicant’s adjacent bottom plate because the circuit substate is adjacent to the conductive bumps; Abstract; pages 6-7 of translation). Hong teaches that flux (a coating of flux is labeled as item 341 in Figure 3C) dispensed onto pads (items 332 in Figures 3B and 3C of the bottom plate) is used to perform the welding, and Hong’s cleaning method serves to dissolve “flux residue” (pages 6-7 of translation). Hong’s method involves filling primer liquid (item 410 in Figures 3E and 3F) between the adjacent bottom plate and the conductive bumps such the flux residue is covered by the primer (pages 6-7 of translation). In Hong’s method, the primer liquid (item 410 in Hong’s Figures 3E and 3F) is an underfill comprising epoxy resin with cerium oxide particles (one of which reads on applicant’s particle) therein (Abstract of Hong and pages 5 and 7 of Hong translation). The bottom plate and the primer thereon are then placed in a chamber, as illustrated in Figure 3F (pages 6-7 of translation). Then, the chamber temperature is controlled to be in the range of 20 to 500 °C (pages 6-7 of translation). In the chamber, oscillating different pressure variation cleaning is performed by oscillating the pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm such that the flux residue is cleaned away by being dissolved into the primer (pages 6-7 of translation).
Hong’s temperature range of 20 to 500 °C is broader than applicant’s recited range of 25 to 200 °C. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, applicant’s recited range is considered to be obvious due to the overlap of the ranges. If this overlapping ranges argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: the temperature to which a chamber is heated is clearly a result-effective variable in the sense that heating something to a high temperature requires energy, and therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Hong such that the temperature to which the chamber is heated is optimized, as the temperature needs to be high enough for Hong’s process to be effective while also not being so high that energy is needlessly being wasted.
In the method of Hong, the oscillating different pressure variation (between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm) is performed in the chamber illustrated in Hong’s Figure 3F. Hong does not explicitly teach that this oscillation is achieved using a vacuum generator.
Lee teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure (Abstract; pages 3-6 of translation).
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 method of Hong such that the oscillating different pressure variation is achieved using a vacuum means (reads on vacuum generator) connected to the chamber, a pressurizing means for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measured data of the chamber’s internal pressure. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure.
The combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches that the dissolving of flux residue into the primer liquid involves oscillating the chamber pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm. This range of between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm is considered to render applicant’s range of 10-5 atm to 50 atm obvious due to overlap of ranges (MPEP 2144.05, Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges). If this overlapping-ranges position is not persuasive, here is an optimization argument: in the method of Hong in view of Lee, the uppermost pressure to which the chamber is pressurized is clearly a result-effective variable because it affects how much pressurized gas is required to pressurize (via the pressurizing means) the chamber. Further, in the method of Hong in view of Lee, the lowermost pressure to which the chamber is vacuumed is a result-effective variable because it affects how much work/energy (creating a vacuum in a space is well known to require work/energy) is required to complete each vacuuming of the chamber down to the lowermost pressure. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Hong in view of Lee by optimizing the range of pressures used in the pressure-oscillating step, as the uppermost pressure and lowermost pressure are both result-effective variables, and as the flip-chip packing and removal of flux still need to successfully occur in the method of Hong in view of Lee. Motivation for such optimization is simply the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon a known process.
In this combination of Hong in view of Lee, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that “gas molecules in the chamber generate a differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of the differential pressure variation causing “movement of the liquid material that is in contact with the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material”.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW201639049 by Hong in view of KR102448321 to Lee.
With regard to claims 7 and 11, Hong teaches a method of cleaning a circuit substrate (comprising item 330 in Figures 3B-3F; reads on bottom plate) in a flip-chip packing process, wherein the method comprises welding conductive bumps (items 320 in Figures 3A and 3D-3F; these bumps 320 read on at least one solder-attachable component) onto said circuit substrate (reads on applicant’s adjacent bottom plate because the circuit substate is adjacent to the conductive bumps; Abstract; pages 6-7 of translation). Hong teaches that flux (a coating of flux is labeled as item 341 in Figure 3C) dispensed onto pads (items 332 in Figures 3B and 3C of the bottom plate) is used to perform the welding, and Hong’s cleaning method serves to dissolve “flux residue” (pages 6-7 of translation). Hong’s method involves filling primer liquid (item 410 in Figures 3E and 3F) between the adjacent bottom plate and the conductive bumps such the flux residue is covered by the primer (pages 6-7 of translation). In Hong’s method, the primer liquid (item 410 in Hong’s Figures 3E and 3F) is an underfill comprising epoxy resin with cerium oxide particles (one of which reads on applicant’s particle) therein (Abstract of Hong and pages 5 and 7 of Hong translation). The bottom plate and the primer thereon are then placed in a chamber, as illustrated in Figure 3F (pages 6-7 of translation). Then, the chamber temperature is controlled to be in the range of 20 to 500 °C (pages 6-7 of translation). In the chamber, oscillating different pressure variation cleaning is performed by oscillating the pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm such that the flux residue is cleaned away by being dissolved into the primer (pages 6-7 of translation).
Hong’s temperature range of 20 to 500 °C is broader than applicant’s recited range of 25 to 200 °C. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, applicant’s recited range is considered to be obvious due to the overlap of the ranges. If this overlapping ranges argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: the temperature to which a chamber is heated is clearly a result-effective variable in the sense that heating something to a high temperature requires energy, and therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Hong such that the temperature to which the chamber is heated is optimized, as the temperature needs to be high enough for Hong’s process to be effective while also not being so high that energy is needlessly being wasted.
In the method of Hong, the oscillating different pressure variation (between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm) is performed in the chamber illustrated in Hong’s Figure 3F. Hong does not explicitly teach that this oscillation is achieved using a pressure increasing and reducing device.
Lee teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure (Abstract; pages 3-6 of translation).
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 method of Hong such that the oscillating different pressure variation is achieved using a vacuum means connected to the chamber, a pressurizing means for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measured data of the chamber’s internal pressure, wherein the combination of vacuum means, pressurizing means, and controller reads on applicant’s pressure increasing and reducing device. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure.
The combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches that the dissolving of flux residue into the primer liquid involves oscillating the chamber pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm. The combination of Hong view of Lee does not teach applicant’s range of a maximum of 50 atm and a minimum of 1 atm. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the uppermost pressure to which the chamber is pressurized is clearly a result-effective variable because it affects how much pressurized air is required to pressurize (via the pressurizing means) the chamber. Further, in the method of Hong in view of Lee, the lowermost pressure in the pressure oscillation range is a result-effective variable because it affects whether or not vacuuming work is required (and, if vacuuming work is required, how much vacuuming work is required) to reach the lowermost pressure value. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Hong in view of Lee by optimizing the range of pressures used in the pressure-oscillating step, as the uppermost pressure and lowermost pressure are both result-effective variables, and as the flip-chip packing and removal of flux still need to successfully occur in the method of Hong in view of Lee. Motivation for such optimization is simply the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon a known process.
In this combination of Hong in view of Lee, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that “gas molecules in the chamber generate a differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of the differential pressure variation allows “the liquid material to move and fluctuate”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW201639049 by Hong in view of KR102448321 to Lee.
With regard to claim 8, Hong teaches a method of cleaning a circuit substrate (comprising item 330 in Figures 3B-3F; reads on bottom plate) in a flip-chip packing process, wherein the method comprises welding conductive bumps (items 320 in Figures 3A and 3D-3F; these bumps 320 read on at least one solder-attachable component) onto said circuit substrate (reads on applicant’s adjacent bottom plate because the circuit substate is adjacent to the conductive bumps; Abstract; pages 6-7 of translation). Hong teaches that flux (a coating of flux is labeled as item 341 in Figure 3C) dispensed onto pads (items 332 in Figures 3B and 3C of the bottom plate) is used to perform the welding, and Hong’s cleaning method serves to dissolve “flux residue” (pages 6-7 of translation). Hong’s method involves filling primer liquid (item 410 in Figures 3E and 3F) between the adjacent bottom plate and the conductive bumps such the flux residue is covered by the primer (pages 6-7 of translation). The bottom plate and the primer thereon are then placed in a chamber, as illustrated in Figure 3F (pages 6-7 of translation). Then, the chamber temperature is controlled to be in the range of 20 to 500 °C (pages 6-7 of translation). In the chamber, oscillating different pressure variation cleaning is performed by oscillating the pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm such that the flux residue is cleaned away by being dissolved into the primer (pages 6-7 of translation).
Hong’s temperature range of 20 to 500 °C is broader than applicant’s recited range of 25 to 200 °C. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, applicant’s recited range is considered to be obvious due to the overlap of the ranges. If this overlapping ranges argument is not persuasive, here is another argument: the temperature to which a chamber is heated is clearly a result-effective variable in the sense that heating something to a high temperature requires energy, and therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 method of Hong such that the temperature to which the chamber is heated is optimized, as the temperature needs to be high enough for Hong’s process to be effective while also not being so high that energy is needlessly being wasted.
In the method of Hong, the oscillating different pressure variation (between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm) is performed in the chamber illustrated in Hong’s Figure 3F. Hong does not explicitly teach that the pressure increasing is achieved with a pressure increasing device.
Lee teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure (Abstract; pages 3-6 of translation).
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 method of Hong such that the oscillating different pressure variation is achieved using a vacuum means connected to the chamber, a pressurizing means for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measured data of the chamber’s internal pressure. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Lee, who teaches that when attempting to alternately lower and raise the pressure inside a vacuum chamber (item 100 in Figure 2), the chamber can successfully perform such alternating of low and high pressure by having a vacuum means (item 300 in Figure 1) attached to the chamber, a pressurizing means (item 400 in Figure 3) for pressurizing the interior of the chamber with gas, and a controller (item 500 in Figure 1) for controlling the operations of the vacuum means and the pressurizing means according to measurement data of the chamber’s internal pressure.
The combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches that the dissolving of flux residue into the primer liquid involves oscillating the chamber pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm. In this combination of Hong in view of Lee, the uppermost value of 30 atm is considered to correspond to applicant’s predetermined pressure ranging from a maximum of 50 atmospheric pressure to a minimum of 1 atmospheric pressure.
In this combination of Hong in view of Lee, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “dissolving the substance to be removed in the liquid material” and applicant’s recited result of “removing the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material using a diffusion force generated by the at least one predetermined temperature and a concentration gradient”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Hong and Lee do not address the same technical problem as the present invention”. This line of argument is not persuasive because what matters is whether or not the prior art teaches or renders obvious the claimed subject matter. Applicant argues that the “present application utilizes gas pressure differential variations to generate movement of a liquid material, such that the liquid material produces a rubbing and scrubbing effect, thereby detaching and removing substances adhered to the bottom plate”. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that the oscillating differential pressure results in a “differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the increase of pressure after vacuuming the chamber down to its lowermost pressure can be considered to read on applicant’s subsequently released because a vacuum force is being released by the increase in pressure.
Applicant argues that “when confronted with [the problem applicant is trying to solvent with their invention], a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably look to Hong and/or Lee, because neither reference addresses a cleaning mechanism based on differential-pressure-induced liquid movement for rubbing and scrubbing removal of contaminants”. Applicant argues that Hong, by contrast, “aims to reduce the need for cleaning through process optimization in order to improve production efficiency”. However, whether or not Hong aims to reduce the need for cleaning is beside the point, as Hong does teach that their cleaning method serves to dissolve “flux residue” (pages 6-7 of translation). Hong’s method involves filling primer liquid (item 410 in Figures 3E and 3F) between the adjacent bottom plate and the conductive bumps such the flux residue is covered by the primer (pages 6-7 of translation). In Hong’s method, the primer liquid (item 410 in Hong’s Figures 3E and 3F) is an underfill comprising epoxy resin with cerium oxide particles (one of which reads on applicant’s particle) therein (Abstract of Hong and pages 5 and 7 of Hong translation). The bottom plate and the primer thereon are then placed in a chamber, as illustrated in Figure 3F (pages 6-7 of translation). Then, the chamber temperature is controlled to be in the range of 20 to 500 °C (pages 6-7 of translation). In the chamber, oscillating differential pressure variation cleaning is performed by oscillating the pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm such that the flux residue is cleaned away by being dissolved into the primer (pages 6-7 of translation).
Applicant points out that “Lee is also directed to a different problem, namely, effectively removing large voids generated during injection during injection of an underfill material to improve production yield”. This line of argument is not persuasive because Lee is simply used as a secondary reference – specifically, to provide detail about how to achieve an alternate raising and lowering of pressure in a chamber. Lee teaches alternatively providing pressure increase and pressure decrease to substrates with underfill material, and thus Lee is considered to be analogous prior art.
Applicant argues that “the oscillating differential pressure in Hong serves a different function from the present application”. Applicant argues that “the function of such pressure variation in Hong is fundamentally different from that of the present application”. This line of argument is not persuasive because, although Hong might not explicitly recite all the effects of the pressure oscillation, the same effects as recited by applicant can reasonably be expected to occur because the combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches performing the same method steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant. Just because Hong teaches using pressure isolation to remove bubbles doesn’t mean that applicant’s cleaning isn’t also occurring in the method of Hong in view of Lee. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that the oscillating differential pressure results in a “differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the increase of pressure after vacuuming the chamber down to its lowermost pressure can be considered to read on applicant’s subsequently released because a vacuum force is being released by the increase in pressure.
On page 10 of applicant’s arguments, applicant lists pressure oscillation ranges presented in the claims and then makes the following argument:
These distinct regimes are not merely arbitrary pressure variations, but are configured to generate differential pressure variation gas flow that induce movement and fluctuation of the liquid material, thereby producing rubbing and scrubbing effects or dissolution-assisted removal, ultimately detaching and removing the substance to be removed from the bottom plate.
In contrast, Hong utilizes oscillating pressure variation solely for bubble removal purposes. Hong does not disclose or suggest using such pressure variation to generate liquid movement for rubbing, scrubbing, or contaminant detachment.
This line of argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, just because Hong teaches using pressure isolation to remove bubbles doesn’t mean that applicant’s cleaning isn’t also occurring in the method of Hong in view of Lee. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that the oscillating differential pressure results in a “differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the increase of pressure after vacuuming the chamber down to its lowermost pressure can be considered to read on applicant’s subsequently released because a vacuum force is being released by the increase in pressure.
Applicant argues that “the rejection’s position improperly equates structurally similar pressure variations with identical functional outcomes”. This line of argument is not persuasive. The examiner’s rejection(s) don’t “equate” structurally similar pressure variations with identical functional outcomes. The examiner’s rejection(s) essentially say that, although Hong might not explicitly recite all the effects of the pressure oscillation, the same effects as recited by applicant can reasonably be expected to occur because the combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches performing the same method steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that the oscillating differential pressure results in a “differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the increase of pressure after vacuuming the chamber down to its lowermost pressure can be considered to read on applicant’s subsequently released because a vacuum force is being released by the increase in pressure.
On page 11 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that the examiner is using an impermissible level of hindsight reasoning when forming his obviousness rejections. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 11 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues that “the prior art does not disclose or suggest the specific arrangement in which oscillating differential pressure variation is operated under the ranges recited in claims 1, 4, 7, and 8. It is precisely this configuration that yields the rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed and the detachment of the substance from the bottom plate. Such results cannot be reasonably expected from a mere juxtaposition of prior-art elements”. This line of argument is not persuasive. The examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, and 7 each articulate how applicant’s claimed pressure range is rendered obvious in view of the prior art. The examiner’s rejection of claim 8 recites the following: the combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches that the dissolving of flux residue into the primer liquid involves oscillating the chamber pressure between 10-3 Torr and 30 atm. In this combination of Hong in view of Lee, the uppermost value of 30 atm is considered to correspond to applicant’s predetermined pressure ranging from a maximum of 50 atmospheric pressure to a minimum of 1 atmospheric pressure. The examiner’s rejection(s) essentially say that, although Hong might not explicitly recite all the effects of the pressure oscillation, the same effects as recited by applicant can reasonably be expected to occur because the combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches performing the same method steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that the oscillating differential pressure results in a “differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the increase of pressure after vacuuming the chamber down to its lowermost pressure can be considered to read on applicant’s subsequently released because a vacuum force is being released by the increase in pressure.
Starting on page 11 of applicant’s arguments, applicant argues the following:
Fourth, claim 1 requires that the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow, rather than by dissolution of the substance to be removed into the liquid material alone. Also, claim 1 requires that the liquid material contains a particle that rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate.
As discussed above, Hong and Lee are silent as to utilizing gas pressure differential variations to generate movement of a liquid material, such that the liquid material produces a rubbing and scrubbing effect, thereby detaching and removing substances adhered to a bottom plate. Thus, Hong and Lee (either alone or in combination) fail to teach or suggest the above features of claim 1.
This line of argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the examiner’s rejection(s) essentially say that, although Hong might not explicitly recite all the effects of the pressure oscillation, the same effects as recited by applicant can reasonably be expected to occur because the combination of Hong in view of Lee teaches performing the same method steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, for example, since the combination of Hong in view of Lee is performing the same steps as disclosed by applicant with the same materials as disclosed by applicant, the same results are reasonably expected to occur – namely, applicant’s recited result that the temperature control has the result to “increase fluidity of the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result that the oscillating differential pressure results in a “differential pressure variation gas flow”, applicant’s recited result of “rubbing and scrubbing of the liquid material against the substance to be removed”, applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”, applicant’s recited result of “the substance to be removed is detached from the adjacent bottom plate by the rubbing and scrubbing effect of the liquid material driven by the differential pressure variation gas flow”, and applicant’s recited result that the particle (recall that in Hong’s method, the primer liquid 410 contains cerium oxide particles, one of those particles reading on applicant’s particle) “rolls with variation of the liquid material caused by the differential pressure variation gas flow to drive the rubbing or scrubbing effect of the liquid material against the substance to be removed on the adjacent bottom plate”. In the method of Hong in view of Lee, the increase of pressure after vacuuming the chamber down to its lowermost pressure can be considered to read on applicant’s subsequently released because a vacuum force is being released by the increase in pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights