DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendment filed 4/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 23, and 49-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund et al., US 6,204,092, in view of Schwarz et al., US 11,114,411, and Farrens et al., US 6,180,496, and Sugaya et al., 2007/0278803.
Regarding claim 23, Freund (figures 4A-B) teaches a bonding system that bonds each of a plurality of chips to a wafer, the bonding system comprising:
a wafer supporter 80 that holds the wafer 60 in a posture in which a bonding surface 62 of the wafer 60 faces vertically downward;
a frame supporter 36 that is placed vertically below the wafer supporter 80, and that supports a holding frame 36 that holds a sheet 32 to which the plurality of chips 40 are stuck in a posture in which bonding surfaces 41 of the plurality of chips 40 face vertically upward;
a head 54 that abuts on a side opposite to the plurality of chips 40 of the sheet 32;
a head driver (column 3, lines 56-57 teaches the head 54 moves upward therefore there a head driver is implied though not taught) that drives the head 54 in a direction of approaching the wafer supporter 80 and thereby extrudes a portion of the sheet 32 to which each of the plurality of chips 40 are stuck toward the wafer 60 such that each of the plurality of chips 40 comes into contact with the wafer 60, to thereby bond each of the plurality of chips 40 to wafer 60, wherein
the wafer supporter 80 holds the wafer 60 in the posture in which the bonding surface 62 of the wafer 60 faces vertically downward so that particles do not adhere to the bonding surface of the of the wafer, the particles being detached from the chip or the sheet when the portion of the sheet is extruded from side opposite to the plurality of chips toward the wafer;
the sheet 32 is placed vertically below the plurality of chips 40, and
each of the plurality of chips 40 is moved vertically upward from vertically below the wafer 60 and caused to come into contact with the bonding surface of the wafer 60 in a state in which the bonding surface of the chip (top of 40) faces vertically upward, and thereby is bonded to the wafer 60.
While Freund fails to specifically teach particles will not adhere to the wafer when the chip is moved toward and bonded to it, this is an inherent result of the configuration. The wafer holder 80/wafer 60 being vertically above the chips 40 inherently means that any particles generated by the chip or the sheet when the chip is extruded toward the wafer would fall downward due to gravity. Gravity inherently would cause the particles to remain on the sheet. Any particles would not float upward, against gravity, and any particles that could possibly be projected upward by the force of the act of bonding would also be affected by gravity and inherently fall back onto the sheet.
Also, Freund fails to specifically teach the wafer is a hydrophilized, wherein the hydrophilized bonding surface of the wafer being in a state where the wafer has been cleaned with water and then remaining water droplets have been removed therefrom due to centrifugal force generated by rotating the wafer.
Farrens (column 1, lines 26-30) teaches the wafer is a hydrophilized, wherein the hydrophilized bonding surface of the wafer being in a state where the wafer has been cleaned with water and then remaining water droplets have been removed therefrom due to centrifugal force generated by rotating the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the hydrophilized surface and centrifugal water removal of water in the invention of Freund because Farrens (column 1, lines 17-32) teaches it is a known way to prepare for direct wafer bonding.
Freund fails to teach the wafer 60 is a wafer.
Schwarz (column 13, lines 7-18) teaches a target carrier 600 to which chips are transferred to, wherein said target carrier can be a temporary carrier, or the final target for the chips, or it can be made of a wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the wafer of Schwarz in the invention of Freund because Schwarz (column 13, lines 7-18) teaches the equivalence of a carrier toa wafer. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Since Schwarz teaches the target carrier 600 can be either a temporary carrier (equivalent to the carrier 60 of Freund) or a final target made of a wafer, a skilled artisan would be motivated to substitute the carrier 60 of Freund with a wafer.
Lastly, Freund fails to teach a central portion of each of the plurality of chips is caused to come into contact with the bonding surface of the wafer by pressing a portion corresponding to the central portion of each of the plurality of chips on the side opposite to the plurality of chips of the sheet toward the wafer, and proceeding with bonding to the substrate from the central portion of each of the plurality of chips to bond the plurality of chips to the wafer.
Sugaya (figures 20-21 & paragraphs 0131-0134) teaches a central portion of each of the plurality of chips is caused to come into contact with the bonding surface of the wafer by pressing a portion corresponding to the central portion of each of the plurality of chips on the side opposite to the plurality of chips of the sheet toward the wafer, and proceeding with bonding to the substrate from the central portion of each of the plurality of chips to bond the plurality of chips to the wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the method of Sugaya in the invention of Freund because Sugaya teaches it corrects misalignment (paragraph 0136) and remove air from the bonding surface (paragraph 0137).
Pertaining to claim 49, Freund (figure 4A) teaches the frame supporter 36 holds the sheet 32 to which the plurality of chips 40 are stuck in the posture in which the hydrophilized bonding surfaces (top of 41) of the plurality of chips 40 face vertically upward, the sheet 32 being held in an expanded state.
In claim 50, Freund (figure 4B) teaches the head 54 is configured to abut on the side opposite to the plurality of chips 41 in the sheet 32 and press a portion corresponding to a central portion of the one chip 41 in the sheet 32 to thereby press the central portion of the one chip 41 such that the central portion of the one chip 41 protrudes toward the wafer 40 with respect to a circumference of the one chip 41, and the head driver 54 drives the head in the direction of approaching the wafer supporter 80 and thereby extrudes the portion of the sheet 32 from the side opposite to the plurality of chips 41 to extrude, toward the wafer 60, the one chip 41 in a state in which the central portion thereof is caused by the head to protrude toward the wafer 60 with respect to the circumference of the one chip 41.
Regarding claim 51, Freund (figure 4b) the head driver 54 drives the head 36 in the direction of approaching the wafer supporter 80 with the head 36 being in a state of abutting the sheet 32 and thereby extrudes the portion of the sheet 32 from the side opposite to the plurality of chips 41 to extrude the one chip 41 toward the wafer 60.
With respect to claim 52, though Freund fails to teach the head is formed of a material transparent to ultraviolet light, the bonding system further includes an ultraviolet ray irradiator that is capable of locally irradiating only a portion corresponding to the one chip coming into contact with the wafer in the sheet, with ultraviolet light, and the ultraviolet ray irradiator locally irradiates only the portion corresponding to the one chip coming into contact with the wafer in the sheet with ultraviolet light through the head in a state in which the one chip is brought into contact with the wafer with the head abutting on the side opposite to the plurality of chips in the sheet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an ultraviolet ray irradiator in the invention of Freund because an ultraviolet ray irradiator is commonly known and used in order to weaken the adhesive to promote separation form the sheet. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 54-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund et al., US 6,204,092, in view of Schwarz et al., US 11,114,411, and Farrens et al., US 6,180,496, and Sugaya et al., 2007/0278803, and Nakai, JP 2012156473,
With respect to claim 54, Freund fails to teach a first alignment mark is disposed on the wafer,
a second alignment mark is disposed on each of the plurality of chips,
the bonding system further includes
a supporter driver that drives at least one of the wafer supporter or the frame supporter,
an imaging device that images, using infrared light, the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark, from a side opposite to the bonding surface of the wafer in the wafer or a side opposite to the bonding surfaces of the plurality chips in the plurality of chips and the sheet, and
a controller that controls the supporter driver and the imaging device, and
the controller controls the imaging device to image the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark, calculates an amount of positional deviation of the one chip from the wafer based on an imaged photographed image, and then controls the supporter driver to relatively move at least one of the wafer supporter or the frame supporter in a direction in which the amount of the positional deviation of the one chip from the wafer is reduced.
Nakai (figure 1) teaches a first alignment mark (“the alignment mark provided corresponding to a predetermined transfer position (electrode) on the component mounting surface 8a of the glass substrate 8”) is disposed on the wafer 8,
a second alignment mark (“the second camera 42 includes an alignment mark provided on the component 7”) is disposed on each of the plurality of chips 7,
the bonding system further includes
a supporter driver 5 that drives at least one of the wafer supporter 21 or the frame supporter 22,
an imaging device 42/42 that images, using infrared light 42, the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark, from a side opposite to the bonding surface of the wafer 8 in the wafer 8 or a side opposite to the bonding surfaces of the plurality chips in the plurality of chips 7 and the sheet 6, and
a controller 23 that controls the supporter driver 5 and the imaging device 41 (“the alignment table 23 is formed so as to be movable in the XY direction substantially orthogonal to the arrow Z direction in FIG. 1 and is formed so as to be rotatable in the θ direction with the arrow Z direction as the center of rotation. By being driven, the relative position of the glass substrate 8 supported by the alignment table 23 with respect to the dicing tape 6 is adjusted. As a result, the alignment table 23 has the bumps 7a of the components 7 held on the dicing tape 6 and the respective components 7 in a state where the dicing tape 6 and the glass substrate 8 are supported by the support means 2 in the closed state. Corresponding to the electrode (transfer position) provided on the component mounting surface 8a of the glass substrate 8 is aligned. The alignment table 23 is driven by an actuator such as a ball nut mechanism having a servo motor or a linear motor”), and
the controller controls the imaging device to image the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark, calculates an amount of positional deviation of the one chip from the wafer based on an imaged photographed image, and then controls the supporter driver to relatively move at least one of the wafer supporter or the frame supporter in a direction in which the amount of the positional deviation of the one chip from the wafer is reduced )” By driving the alignment table 23 based on the recognition result of the second camera 42, the bump 7a of the component 7 to be transferred held on the dicing tape 6 and the glass substrate 8 corresponding to the component 7. The electrode (transfer position) provided on the component mounting surface 8a is aligned”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the bonding system of Nakai in the invention of Freund because Nakai teaches it shortens the processing time (abstract).
As to claim 55, Nakai (figure 1) teaches the head 22/21 is transparent to infrared light, and the imaging device images the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark through the head. The IR cameras 42/42 goes through head 21/22 therefore it is transparent.
In re claim 56, though Nakai fails to teach a distance between the wafer and the plurality of chips stuck to the sheet is set at a reference distance at which the imaging device is not allowed to be interposed between the wafer and the plurality of chips, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the distance through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
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 DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 5/9/26
Prosecution Insights