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 .
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 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/776257 (reference application). 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 application with the subject matter of both of claims 2 and 3 of the reference application because claims 2 and 3 are directed to the same embodiment as that of claim 1 of the reference application. 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 application. For example, the phrase “differential pressure variation gas flow” of the instant application corresponds to the “wavy airflow” of the reference application.
Claims 4 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4-6 of copending Application No. 18/776257 (reference application). 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 4 of the reference application with the subject matter of both of claims 5 and 6 of the reference application because claims 5 and 6 are directed to the same embodiment as that of claim 4 of the reference application. 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 application. For example, the phrase “differential pressure variation gas flow” of the instant application corresponds to the “wavy airflow” of the reference application.
Claims 7 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/776257 (reference application). 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 7 of the reference application with the subject matter of both of claims 9 and 11 of the reference application because claims 9 and 11 are directed to the same embodiment as that of claim 7 of the reference application. 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 reads on the “intermittent fluctuation cleaning” of the reference application. For example, the phrase “differential pressure variation gas flow” of the instant application reads on the “wavy airflow” of the reference application.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/776257 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims only differ in a slight language choice: claim 8 of the reference application recites “more effectively” in line 20, but this “more effectively” phrase is relative terminology (“relative terminology” in the 35 U.S.C. 112b sense, see MPEP 2173.05b) and doesn’t patentably distinguish claim 8 of the reference application from claim 10 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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. 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”, 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”. 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 December 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following with respect to the Hong reference
By means of a pressure differential within the pressure-resistant chamber, which varies in an oscillatory manner, the filling primer liquid (410) dissolves the flux residue, removes bubbles, and undergoes curing. Referring to the entire disclosure of Hong, Hong does not attempt to remove a flux, a flux residue, an oil ester, or a photoresist from the filling primer liquid (410).
This line of argument is not persuasive. In the chamber of Hong, 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 Hong translation). In the 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 – including applicant’s recited result of “detaching the substance to be removed away from the adjacent bottom plate and the liquid material”.
Applicant argues that “both Hong and Lee only provides methods for removing bubbles, and do not disclose incorporating a particles into the liquid material to thereby remove a flux, a flux residue, an oil ester, or a photoresist on an adjacent bottom plate”. This argument is not persuasive. In the chamber of Hong, 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 Hong translation). The Hong translation recites, for example, near the top of page 6 of the Hong translation that “the pressure applied to dissolve the flux residue in the primer and defoam and cure the primer is presented in an oscillating manner, and the range of variation is set to 10-3 Torr to 30 atmosphere (atm) range”. In the combination of Hong in view of Lee used to reject claim 1, 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”, 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”. 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.
The above-discussed arguments dealt with claim 1. Applicant repeats those arguments for the similar independent claims (claim 4, claim 7, and claim 8), mutatis mutandis. Similarly, regarding claims 4, 7, and 8, the examiner’s responses to such repeated arguments are also the same as the examiner’s responses to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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