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
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.
Claim(s) 12-14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shizuka (KR1998-0087141A, machine translation Innovation Q+) in view of Reinhardt (US6747243B1) and further in view of Hamamatsu et al. (US2005/0213086A1).
Re claims 12-14, and 19, Shizuka teach a method of removing residual contaminants from an inner surface of an encapsulation mold (page 5), comprising the steps of a) irradiating the mould surface with at least one laser light beam (claim 12, page 2); and c) steering a relative moveable cleaner (Fig. 3) to remove detected contaminants with a brush 4 (page 2, claim 2; page 10). Specifically, page 10 of the translation, teaches a cleaning device in which the roller brush is moved after the UV irradiation, to remove contaminants that could not be removed by irradiation and injection of compressed air. Re claim 14, refer to claim 12 of the translation which teaches that the changeable direction of the mirror surface allows the laser beam to scan the entire surface of the mold.
Re claim 12, Shizuka teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of detecting the location of contaminants on a surface. Reinhardt teaches cleaning a substrate surface by detecting the location of contaminants (abstract), using an inspection system, controller and software (Fig. 1B) to store the coordinates of the contaminants (col. 7, lines 25-55), and employing a removal apparatus, to remove only those defects (i.e. contaminants) from the surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shizuka to include detecting the location of contaminants, as taught by Reinhardt, for purposes of removing only such contaminants, thereby preventing damage or altering the substrate surface.
Re claim 12, Shizuka in view of Reinhardt teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the light beam scattering from the irradiated contaminants. Hamamatsu et al. teach it is well known in the art (paragraph 4) to detect particles on a semiconductor substrate by irradiating a laser beam onto the substrate and detecting light scattered from the particle adhered to the substrate surface. In view of the teachings of Hamamatsu et al., the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected irradiation with the laser beam of Reinhardt et al. to produce light beam scattering from the presence of particles/contaminants present on the substrate surface. Additionally, light scattering of particles as a result of irradiation, is well known in the art, as further evidenced by Hatakeyama et al. (US2010/0019147A1, paragraph 5). Re claim 17, refer to Reinhardt, col. 8, lines 35-40.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shizuka (KR1998-0087141A, machine translation Innovation Q+) in view of Reinhardt (US6747243B1) and Hamamatsu et al. (US2005/0213086A1) and further in view of Lu et al. (WO99/65061).
Re claims 15-16, Shizuka in view of Reinhardt and Hamamatsu et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of irradiating at an acute angle and at the claimed angles recited in claim 16.
Lu et al. teach a portable laser cleaning device for cleaning multiple molds to remove surface contaminants (abstract). Page 14, lines 16-25 teaches angling the laser with respect to the mould surface in order to allow all surfaces of the mold surface to receive sufficient energy from the laser to allow for cleaning. In the absence of a showing of criticality and/or 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 have modified the modified method of Shizuka to include angling the laser beam, as taught by Yongfeng et al., at any angle, in order to effectively clean and remove contaminants from the mold surface.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims, under 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the newly amended claims.
The rejections of the claims as being unpatentable over Shizuka in view of the secondary references are maintained. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the light beam scattered from the irradiated contaminants. The limitations are met by the teachings of Hamamatsu et al. for the reasons recited above. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that irradiation with a laser beam results in light scattering from contaminants present on the substrate surface, as further evidenced by Hatakeyama et al.
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights