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 Status
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed on 03/17/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In the light of the amendment to the claims and the arguments filed on 03/17/2026, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002282807 to Okamura et. (hereinafter “Okamura”) in view of JP 2020155759 to Mimura et al. (hereinafter “Mimura”, presented in the IDS filed on 09/03/2024, see attached English translation), and in further view of US 2010/0154874 to Hirose et al. (hereinafter “Hirose”).
Regarding claim 1, Okamura teaches a cleaning method for manufacturing a substrate, the method comprising a wet cleaning process of performing wet cleaning on the surface of the substrate by a liquid, and a dry-cleaning process of performing dry cleaning on the surface of the electronic component by atmospheric-pressure plasma after the wet cleaning (English translation [0025]). Okamura further teaches that the substrate is not particularly limited, and that the substrate can be made for example of glass, and soda glass, alkali-free glass, borosilicate glass, quartz glass, and other materials (English translation [0026]).
Okamura does not teach the step of performing a hydrophilization treatment on the surface of the electronic component using hydrogen water obtained by dissolving hydrogen gas into water, after the dry-cleaning process.
However, it was known in the art to perform a hydrophilization treatment on the surface of an electronic component after a treatment with atmospheric-pressure plasma. For example, Mimura teaches an apparatus and method for treating a wafer comprising the steps of performing a plasma treatment on the surface of the wafer under a reduced pressure atmosphere with oxygen gas, wherein the oxygen gas is excited and turned into plasma (English translation [0081]), and performing a hydrophilization treatment on the surface of the wafer after the plasma treatment for the purpose of causing the surface of the substrate to become hydrophilic (English translation [0082]).
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 disclosed by Okamura with the step of performing a hydrophilization treatment on the surface of the electronic component after the dry-cleaning process, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Mimura teaches that it was known in the art to perform a hydrophilization treatment on the surface of s substrate after a plasma treatment for the purpose of causing the surface of the substrate to become hydrophilic (English translation [0081-0082] of Mimura).
Okamura/Mimura does not teach the step of performing the hydrophilization treatment on the surface of the electronic component is performed by using hydrogen water obtained by dissolving hydrogen gas into water.
However, Hirose teaches that it was known in the art to treat a surface of a substrate with ozone-added water, oxygen-added water, hydrogen-added water, pure water, or the like so that the surface of the substrate is made hydrophilic [0078].
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 disclosed by Okamura/Mimura wherein the step of performing the hydrophilization treatment on the surface of the electronic component is performed by using hydrogen water obtained by dissolving hydrogen gas into water, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hirose teaches that it was known in the art to treat a surface of a substrate with hydrogen-added water so that the surface of the substrate is made hydrophilic ([0078] of Hirose).
Okamura/Mimura/Hirose does not explicitly teach that the method is for cleaning an electronic component.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Okamura/Mimura/Hirose for cleaning an electronic component, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Okamura teaches that the method is effective for cleaning a substrate, wherein the substrate is not particularly limited, and that the substrate can be made for example of glass, and soda glass, alkali-free glass, borosilicate glass, quartz glass, and other materials (English translation [0026] of Okamura).
Regarding claim 2, Okamura/Mimura/Hirose further teaches that the hydrogen water treatment process is started immediately after an end of the dry-cleaning process (English translation [0081-0082] of Mimura).
Regarding claim 3, Okamura/Mimura/Hirose does not teach that the hydrogen water treatment process is started within 30 seconds after the end of the dry-cleaning process.
However, the time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process is too low, it risks potential damage to the surface of the substrate, while if the time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process is too high, it wastes time. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 4, Okamura/Mimura/Hirose does not teach that the hydrogen water treatment process is started within 10 seconds after the end of the dry-cleaning process.
However, the time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process is too low, it risks potential damage to the surface of the substrate, while if the time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process is too high, it wastes time. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate time at which the hydrogen water treatment process starts after the end of the dry-cleaning process with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 6, Okamura/Mimura/Hirose further teaches that the substrate is a wafer (English translation [0081-0082] of Mimura).
Regarding claim 7, Okamura/Mimura/Hirose does not explicitly teach that the substrate is a semiconductor chip adhered onto a support material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Okamura/Mimura/Hirose for cleaning a semiconductor chip adhered onto a support material, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Okamura teaches that the method is effective for cleaning a substrate, wherein the substrate is not particularly limited, and that the substrate can be made for example of glass, and soda glass, alkali-free glass, borosilicate glass, quartz glass, and other materials (English translation [0026] of Okamura).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002282807 to Okamura et. (hereinafter “Okamura”) in view of JP 2020155759 to Mimura et al. (hereinafter “Mimura”, presented in the IDS filed on 09/03/2024, see attached English translation), and US 2010/0154874 to Hirose et al. (hereinafter “Hirose”), and in further view of US 2008/0156347 to Haibara et al. (hereinafter “Haibara”).
Regarding claim 5, Okamura/Mimura/Hirose does not teach that the hydrogen water treatment process comprises spraying the hydrogen water, which is ultrasonically vibrated, to the surface of the electronic component.
Haibara teaches a method for treating an electronic material such as silicon wafer with hydrogen water in combination with ultrasonic irradiation (abstract, and [0009]).
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 disclosed by Okamura/Mimura/Hirose wherein the hydrogen water treatment process comprises spraying the hydrogen water, which is ultrasonically vibrated, to the surface of the electronic component, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hibara teaches that it was known in the art to treat a surface of a substrate with hydrogen water in combination with ultrasonic irradiation (abstract, and [0009] of Hibara).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights