DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nou et la. (US 2007/0006896 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 7,346,969 B2).
Claim 1: Nou et al. discloses a cleaning device (19-24 of Figure 1) configured to clean a target holding surface (18 of Figure 1) the target holding surface being a holding surface which faces the cleaning device (surface is metal mask capable of holding substances such as left over solder therefore it is considered a holding surface).
Nou et al. fails to disclose a jig die that includes a mount block and at least two holding surfaces, each of the at least two holding surfaces configured to, hold a package substrate on which a semiconductor die is mounted, and rotate around a rotation shaft extending along a first horizontal direction.
However, Huang et al. teaches a mount block (32 of Figure 1) and at least two holding surfaces (38 of Figure 1), each of the at least two holding surfaces configured to hold a package substrate on which a semiconductor die is mounted (the surfaces 38 are capable of holding a package substrate and is therefore to configured to hold a package substrate on which a semiconductor die is mounted), and rotate around a rotation shaft (36 of Figure 1) extending along a first horizontal direction (L1 of Figure 1, the mount back can be oriented in a horizontal or vertical direction and the holding surfaces 38 will still rotate around the axis L1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the mount block of Huang et al. with the cleaning device of Nou et al. because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the combination would be achieved by incorporating the mount block of Huang et al. into the cleaning system of Nou et al. such that the mount block of Huang et al. hold the metal mask of Nou et al.
This modification would allow the cleaning device of Nou et al. to clean four metal masks and rotate the metal mask to face the cleaning nozzles of Nou et al. This modification would increase the capability of the clear device of Nou et al. Further the cleaning device of Nou et al. could be oriented such that the metal mask were held horizontally instead of vertically as depicted in Figure 1.
Claim 2: Huang et al. further teaches that the mount block comprises a single mount block (32 of Figure 1).
Claim 3: Huang et al. further teaches that the at least two holding surfaces further comprise: a first holding surface on a first surface of the mount block; and a second holding surface on a second surface of the mount block opposite to the first surface of the mount block (as depicted in Figure 1, the mounting block 32 has four mounting surfaces 38 including two pairs of surfaces that are opposite of each other).
Claim 6: Neither Nou et al. nor Huang et al. discloses or reasonably suggest that the mount block is a first mount block, the first mount block including a first holding surface; the jig further includes a second mount block, the second mount block including a second holding surface; and the first mount block and the second mount block are spaced 180 degrees around the rotation shaft.
However, it has long been held that the duplication of parts requires only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the mount block of Huang et la. in order to provide a second mount block including a second holding surface spaced apart from the first mount block by 180° around the rotation shaft since it has long been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 7: As addressed above in regard to claim 6, Nou et al./Huang et al. renders obvious a first mount block and the second mount block. In duplicating the first mount block of Huang et al. a second mount block having a same shape and size as the first mount block of Huang et al. would be provided.
Claims 11-12 and 17-18: These claims are rejected under similar reasoning as that applied to claims 6 and 7 as these limitations would require only the duplication of the working parts of Huang et al. which require only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-10, 13-16, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,845,739 discloses a cleaning system that holds workpiece in a horizontal orientation on a rotating shaft within a cleaning system. US 4,452,264 discloses a system for removing adhereing substances from a treated surface. US 5,535,995 discloses a jig with holding surfaces for holding and rotating multiple workpieces about a horizontal shaft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights