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 .
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group II, claims 12-20 in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that there is no serious burden to additionally examine the claims of Group I. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons recited in the Restriction Requirement of 2/10/2026. Specifically, the method can be performed with a different apparatus which does not include a controller and the apparatus can be used to perform a different method such as cleaning a floor surface. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the following reasons. Specifically, the preamble recites "especially", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 12 is indefinite because "the locations" lack positive antecedent basis. Claim 12 is further indefinite because it is unclear how the step of "steering a relative moveable cleaner" removes the detected contaminants". The claim fails to recite a positive step of removing contaminants. Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as a "relative moveable cleaner". What does applicant mean by "relative moveable". Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear whether applicant further defines the light beam of claim 12 as a laser beam. Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "light beam moveable irradiates". It is unclear whether the light beam is moveable while it is being irradiated or whether the light beam is irradiated while not being moveable. Claim 16 is indefinite because of the term "preferably", as it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "mechanical engagement". Specifically, it is unclear what elements are mechanically engaged? Does applicant mean the mechanical engagement of the cleaner with a) the surface, b) the detected contaminants, or c) or both. Clarification is requested. Claim 20 is indefinite because it is not further limiting as the moveable cleaner is recited in claim 12. Furthermore, it is unclear the difference between the cleaning device and the moveable cleaner.
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 and 17-20 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).
Re claims 12-14, and 18-20, 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 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 further in view of Lu et al. (WO99/65061).
Re claims 15-16, Shizuka in view of 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Venrooli et al. teach a device for cleaning an encapsulating device for electronic components. Song et al. teach a method of removing surface contaminants on moulds using semiconductor packaging tools. Shizuka teaches a method and apparatus for removing residual dirt adhered to dies.
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