DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-19 and 22-23 have been amended. Claims 3 and 20-21 have been cancelled. Claims 24-25 are new.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicants amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 9/4/2025. Therefore, the claims objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-19, and 22-25 are have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase “the second side of window” in line 16 should be changed to “the second side of the window”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI.
Regarding claim 24, MOMENI teaches: A system (MOMENI teaches a system [Figs. 1-4].), comprising: a laser assisted bonding (LAB) tool (MOMENI teaches a laser assisted bonding tool [Fig. 1; Abstract].), comprising: a stage block comprising a window having a first side and a second side, opposite the first side, wherein the first side is configured to support a substrate having a plurality of interconnected substrate portions (MOMENI teaches a stage block (51) that comprises a window (52) having a first side and a second side, opposite the first side, and supports a substrate (18) having a plurality of interconnected substrate portions [Fig. 3].), each of the plurality of interconnected substrate portions coupled with an electronic component comprising a semiconductor die having an interconnect between the semiconductor die and the substrate (MOMENI teaches each substrate portions coupled with an electronic component (17), which is a chip having interconnects between the chip and substrate (18) [Figs. 1-4].); a compression tool over the first side of the window (MOMENI teaches a compression tool (15) [Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, lines 13-22].), wherein the compression tool is configured to provide compression on a top side of the electronic component (MOMENI teaches the compression tool (15) provides compression on a top side of the electronic component (17) [Figs. 1-4].); and a laser source on the second side of the window and facing the stage block (MOMENI teaches a laser source configured to direct a laser beam through a second side of the window facing the stage block (51), as MOMENI teaches the silicon cushion improves the quality of the contacting irrespective of the type of application of laser energy to the connected surfaces, indicating that a laser source is still in use with the stage block (50) [Col. 7, lines 25-35; Figs. 2-4].), wherein the laser source is configured to emit laser beams towards the interconnect of the electronic component of each of the plurality of interconnected substrate portions through the second side of the window of the stage block and through the substrate to simultaneously induce heat on the interconnect of the electronic component of each of the plurality of interconnected substrate portions (MOMENI teaches the laser source emits laser beams to each contact pair of the connecting surfaces [Col. 5, lines 57-65; Col. 2, lines 35-37].). The Examiner would like to clarify to the Applicant that the structure that is being examined of the system and the LAB tool is: a stage block, a compression tool and a laser source. Many of the limitations claimed are in regards to the use of the apparatus and the material worked upon (substrate, interconnects, interconnected substrate portions, electronic component). Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that MOMENI discloses a stage block with a window, a compression tool, a laser source and the laser source positioned under the window as presently claimed, it is clear that the system of MOMENI would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. stage block supporting a substrate, and laser source bonds the electronic component to the substrate and interconnected portions, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnected substrate portions, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10-12, 14-15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, in view of Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA.
Regarding claim 1, MOMENI teaches: A system (MOMENI teaches a system [Figs. 1-4].), comprising: a laser assisted bonding (LAB) tool (MOMENI teaches a laser assisted bonding tool [Fig. 1; Abstract]), comprising: a stage block comprising a window having a first side and a second side, opposite the first side, wherein the first side is configured to support a first substrate and a first electronic component coupled with the first substrate (MOMENI teaches a stage block (51) that comprises a window (52) having a first side and a second side, opposite the first side, and supports a substrate (18) and an electronic component (17) [Fig. 3].), the first electronic component comprising a first semiconductor die having a first interconnect, the first interconnect between the first semiconductor die and the first substrate (MOMENI teaches the electronic component (17) has interconnects between the component and the substrate [Figs. 1-4].), and wherein the window . . . ; a compression tool over the first side of the window (MOMENI teaches a compression tool (15) [Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, lines 13-22].), wherein the compression tool is configured to provide compression on a top side of the first electronic component (MOMENI teaches the compression tool (15) provides compression on a top side of the electronic component (17) [Figs. 1-4].); and a laser source on the second side of the window and facing the stage block (MOMENI teaches a laser source configured to direct a laser beam through a second side of the window facing the stage block (51), as MOMENI teaches the silicon cushion improves the quality of the contacting irrespective of the type of application of laser energy to the connected surfaces, indicating that a laser source is still in use with the stage block (50) [Col. 7, lines 25-35; Figs. 2-4].), wherein the laser source is configured to emit laser beams towards the first interconnect through the second side of the window of the stage block and through the first substrate to induce a first heat on the first interconnect (MOMENI teaches a laser source that is configured to direct a laser beam from the laser source to the physical window [Figs. 1-4; Col. 7, lines 25-35]. MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7].).
The Examiner would like to clarify to the Applicant that the structure that is being examined of the system and the LAB tool is: a stage block, a compression tool and a laser source. Many of the limitations claimed are in regards to the use of the apparatus and the material worked upon (substrate, interconnects, interconnected substrate portions, electronic component). Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that MOMENI discloses a stage block with a window, a compression tool, a laser source and the laser source positioned under the window as presently claimed, it is clear that the system of MOMENI would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. stage block supporting a substrate, and laser source bonds the electronic component to the substrate and interconnected portions, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnected substrate portions, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
MOMENI does not teach that the window (52) in the stage block is translucent. In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YORITA teaches that the silicon base is translucent [0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI with a translucent silicon, as suggested by YORITA, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 4, MOMENI teaches: wherein the solid translucent material of the window permits the laser beams to pass through and reach the first substrate (MOMENI teaches the material of the window (52) permits the laser beams to pass through and reach the first substrate [Figs. 1-4].).
Regarding claim 10, MOMENI teaches: wherein the laser source and the compression are applied concurrently (MOMENI teaches the heat of the laser and the pressing is done concurrently [Col. 5, lines 58-65].).
Regarding claim 11, MOMENI teaches: wherein a temperature of the first substrate directly adjacent to the first interconnect is lower than a temperature of the first interconnect when the laser source emits the laser beams to induce the first heat on the first interconnect (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Regarding claim 12, MOMENI teaches: wherein a temperature of the electronic component directly adjacent to the first interconnect is lower than a temperature of the first interconnect when the laser source emits the laser beams to induce the first heat on the first interconnect (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Regarding claim 14, MOMENI teaches: wherein the electronic component comprises silicon and the first substrate comprises a non-silicon material (MOMENI teaches a workpiece (17) and a substrate (18) [Fig. 3]. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Regarding claim 15, MOMENI teaches: wherein a footprint of window is as large or larger than a footprint of the first substrate (MOMENI teaches a footprint of the window (52) is as large as the substrate (18) [Fig. 3].).
Regarding claim 25, MOMENI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including the window having a footprint as large or larger than the substrate (MOMENI teaches the window (52) has as large a footprint as the substrate (18) [Fig. 3]), but is silent as to: wherein the window comprises a solid translucent material. In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YORITA teaches that the silicon base is translucent [0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI with a translucent silicon, as suggested by YORITA, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, in view of TAKANO et al. (WO 2019065473 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter TAKANO.
Regarding claim 22, MOMENI teaches: A system (MOMENI teaches a system [Figs. 1-4].), comprising: a laser assisted bonding (LAB) tool (MOMENI teaches a laser assisted bonding tool [Fig. 1; Abstract].), comprising: a stage block comprising a window having a first side and a second side, opposite the first side, wherein the first side is configured to support a first substrate and a first electronic component coupled with the first substrate (MOMENI teaches a stage block (51) that comprises a window (52) having a first side and a second side, opposite the first side, and supports a substrate (18) and an electronic component (17) [Fig. 3].), the first electronic component comprising a first semiconductor die having a first interconnect, the first interconnect between the first semiconductor die and the first substrate (MOMENI teaches the electronic component (17) has interconnects between the component and the substrate [Figs. 1-4].); a compression tool over the first side of the window (MOMENI teaches a compression tool (15) over the first side of the window (52) [Fig. 3].), . . . ; and a laser source on the second side of the window and facing the stage block (MOMENI teaches a laser source configured to direct a laser beam through a second side of the window facing the stage block (51), as MOMENI teaches the silicon cushion improves the quality of the contacting irrespective of the type of application of laser energy to the connected surfaces, indicating that a laser source is still in use with the stage block (50) [Col. 7, lines 25-35; Figs. 2-4].), wherein the laser source is configured to emit laser beams towards the first interconnect through the second side of window of the stage block and through the first substrate to induce a second heat on the first interconnect (MOMENI teaches a laser source that is configured to direct a laser beam from the laser source to the physical window [Figs. 1-4; Col. 7, lines 25-35]. MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]), and wherein the first heat, the second heat, and the compression are provided concurrently (MOMENI teaches the heat of the laser and the pressing is done concurrently [Col. 5, lines 58-65].).
MOMENI is silent as to: wherein the compression tool comprises a heater source and a thermal/compression plate, the heater source configured to apply a first heat through the thermal/compression plate and the first electronic component to the first interconnect, and the thermal/compression plate configured to provide compression by pressing a top side of the first electronic component. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, TAKANO teaches a compression head (50) so as to press the semiconductor [0025]. TAKANO teaches a temperature-variable heater is built into the compression head (50) and the compression head is heated to a first temperature [0025; 0035]. TAKANO teaches a heat from the compression tool and a heat from the laser source can be performed concurrently [0050; 0066-0067]. TAKANO teaches the compression head has a compression plate (50) [Fig. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, by having a compression tool with a heater source, as suggested by TAKANO, in order to perform a main compression bonding [0013].
The Examiner would like to clarify to the Applicant that the structure that is being examined of the system and the LAB tool is: a stage block, a compression tool and a laser source. Many of the limitations claimed are in regards to the use of the apparatus and the material worked upon (substrate, interconnects, interconnected substrate portions, electronic component). Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that MOMENI discloses a stage block with a window, a compression tool, a laser source and the laser source positioned under the window as presently claimed, it is clear that the system of MOMENI would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. stage block supporting a substrate, and laser source bonds the electronic component to the substrate and interconnected portions, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnected substrate portions, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
Claim(s) 2, 7-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TAKANO et al. (WO 2019065473 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter TAKANO.
Regarding claim 2, MOMENI and YORITA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the compression tool is configured to apply a second heat to the first interconnect through the first electronic component. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, TAKANO teaches a compression head (50) so as to press the semiconductor [0025]. TAKANO teaches a temperature-variable heater is built into the compression head (50) and the compression head is heated to two temperatures [0025; 0035]. TAKANO teaches a heat from the compression tool and a heat from the laser source can be performed concurrently [0050; 0066-0067]. TAKANO teaches the compression head has a compression plate (50) [Fig. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having a compression tool with a heater source, as suggested by TAKANO, in order to perform a main compression bonding [0013].
Regarding claim 7, TAKANO further teaches: wherein the compression tool comprises a heater source and a thermal/compression plate (TAKANO teaches a temperature-variable heater is built into the compression head (50) and the compression head is heated to two temperatures [0025; 0035]. TAKANO teaches the compression head has a compression plate (50) [Fig. 9].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having a compression tool with a heater source, as suggested by TAKANO, in order to perform a main compression bonding [0013].
Regarding claim 8, TAKANO teaches: wherein the heater source is configured to apply a second heat through the thermal/compression plate and the first electronic component to the first interconnect (TAKANO teaches the heater source is configured to apply a second heat through the compression head (50) to the electronic component [0025; 0035].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having a compression tool with a heater source, as suggested by TAKANO, in order to perform a main compression bonding [0013].
Regarding claim 9, TAKANO further teaches: wherein the thermal/compression plate is configured to provide the compression by pressing the top side of the first electronic component (TAKANO teaches the compression tool (50) presses the top side of the electronic component [Fig. 9; 0025].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having a compression tool with a heater source, as suggested by TAKANO, in order to perform a main compression bonding [0013].
Regarding claim 16, TAKANO further teaches: wherein the first side of the window of the stage block is configured to support a second electronic component coupled to the first substrate and adjacent to the first electronic component (TAKANO teaches a first and second component are on the first side of the stage block [Fig. 4].), the second electronic component comprising a second semiconductor die having a second interconnect, wherein the second interconnect is between the second semiconductor die and the first substrate (TAKANO teaches the second component has a second interconnect, where the interconnect is between the second component and substrate [Fig. 4; 0029-0030].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having several components on the substrate, as suggested by TAKANO, in order to shorten manufacturing time [0036].
Regarding claim 17, MOMENI teaches: wherein the laser source is configured to emit the laser beams towards the second interconnect through the second side of the window of the stage block and through the first substrate to induce a second heat on the second interconnect (MOMENI teaches the laser source (28) emits a laser beam on each contact pair (37) [Fig. 6, lines 33-42; Col. 2, lines 35-38].).
Regarding claim 18, MOMENI teaches: wherein the laser source is configured to induce the first heat on the first interconnect and the second heat on the second interconnect simultaneously (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0330973), hereinafter YAMAZAKI.
Regarding claim 5, MOMENI and YORITA teach all of the claimed limitations, but are silent as to: wherein the window comprises quartz. In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YAMAZAKI teaches a physical window (233) that is made of quartz [0080; Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, by having the window be made of quartz, as suggested by YORITA, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimoto et al. (U.S. 5,829,125), hereinafter FUJIMOTO.
Regarding claim 6, MOMENI and YORITA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the laser beam has a depth of field (DOF) and the metal interconnect is in the DOF when heated. In the same field of endeavor, bonding tools, FUJIMOTO teaches: wherein the laser beam has a depth of field (DOF) and the metal interconnect is in the DOF when heated (FUJIMOTO teaches the depth of field of the laser beam (7) is made to coincide with the conductor (4) and the connecting material (6) [Col. 4, lines 15-25]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by the laser beam having a depth of field, as suggested by FUJIMOTO, in order to prevent the deterioration of the component quality and the performance resulting from these stresses [Col. 4, lines 25-33]). [col. 4, lines 50-56].
Regarding claim 11, MOMENI and YORITA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding tools, FUJIMOTO further teaches: wherein a greater amount of heat is applied to the metal interconnect than to the substrate during bonding (FUJIMOTO teaches to prevent the local heat generation occurring in the substrate (3) itself at the laser beam irradiation, it is preferable to enlarge the illumination angle of the laser beam to the utmost by enhancing the magnification of a condenser lens. In addition, the illuminating area is shifted from the lower surface of the conductor to under the lower surface of the substrate [Col. 4, lines 15-25]. FUJIMOTO teaches the connecting material (6) is heated and melt by the laser beam (7) passing through the substrate (3) to accomplish the connection between the external electrode (2) and the conductor (4), and hence there is no application of the thermal and mechanical stresses to both the component (1) and substrate (3) at the connection, which can prevent the deterioration of the component quality and the performance resulting from these stresses [Col. 4, lines 25-33]). [col. 4, lines 50-56].
Regarding claim 12, MOMENI and YORITA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding tools, FUJIMOTO teaches during laser beam irradiation, the component can be cooled which can readily prevent the component body from being heated due to laser beam irradiation [Col. 4, lines 43-49]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having greater amount of heat applied to the connection (6) than the component, as suggested by FUJIMOTO, in order to easily prevent the component body from being heated at the laser beam irradiation [Col. 4, lines 43-49].
Regarding claim 13, FUJIMOTO further teaches: wherein a temperature of a mold compound adjacent to the first electronic component and directly adjacent to the first interconnect is lower than a temperature of the first interconnect when the laser source emits the laser beams to induce the first heat on the first interconnect (FUJIMOTO teaches the connecting material (6) is heated and melt by the laser beam (7) passing through the substrate (3) to accomplish the connection between the external electrode (2) and the conductor (4), and hence there is no application of the thermal and mechanical stresses to both the component (1) and substrate (3) at the connection, which can prevent the deterioration of the component quality and the performance resulting from these stresses, indicating that the heat applied to the connection is greater than its surroundings [Col. 4, lines 25-33]. The Examiner is interpreting the bumps (5) as molding compounds, which have a higher melting point than the connecting material (6) [Col. 3, lines 49-51]. FUJIMOTO teaches the connecting material (6) melts, but the bumps (5) do not [Figs. 3-18; Col. 4, lines 9-12].).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Welkowsky et al. (U.S. 5,160,560), hereinafter WELKOWSKY.
Regarding claim 14, MOMENI and YORITA teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, electronics, WELKOWSKY teaches the workpiece is a silicon wafer and the substrate is made of glass [Col. 3, lines 22-25; Col. 3, lines 60-63]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having a silicon wafer and a glass substrate, as suggested WELKOWSKY, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TERADA (WO 2016125763 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter TERADA.
Regarding claim 19, MOMENI and YORITA teach all of claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the compression tool comprises a vacuum hole to apply vacuum through the vacuum hole to force the first electronic component against the compression tool. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, TERADA teaches a compression head with a vacuum hole (90) to force the electronic component against the compression tool [Fig. 3; 0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having a vacuum hole in the compression tool, as suggested by TERADA, in order to hold the electronic component with a sufficient force [0040].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and TAKANO et al. (WO 2019065473 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter TAKANO, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA.
Regarding claim 23, MOMENI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including the window having a footprint as large or larger than the substrate (MOMENI teaches the window (52) has as large a footprint as the substrate (18) [Fig. 3]), but is silent as to: wherein the window comprises a solid translucent material. In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YORITA teaches that the silicon base is translucent [0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI with a translucent silicon, as suggested by YORITA, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, and TAKANO et al. (WO 2019065473 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter TAKANO, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Fujimoto et al. (U.S. 5,829,125), hereinafter FUJIMOTO.
Regarding claim 18, MOMENI, YORITA, and TAKANO teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding, FUJIMOTO teaches the laser source can emit beams on the various interconnects simultaneously [Figs. 1(B), 14]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, YORITA and TAKANO, by the laser beams heating the interconnects simultaneously, as suggested by FUJIMOTO, in order to prevent the deterioration of the component quality and the performance resulting from these stresses [Col. 4, lines 25-33]). [Col. 4, lines 50-56]. Furthermore, it’s a known option in the art to supply laser beams simultaneously, as shown in FUJIMOTO [Fig. 1(B)]. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied collaboration tool. Applicant can 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748