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 .
This OA is in response to the amendment filled on 8/20/2025 that has been entered, wherein claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 8/20/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 8/20/2025.
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.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record in view of Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a thermal compression bonding (TCB) tool(Fig. 5), comprising:
a pedestal(10, ¶0019) comprising a convex surface(12a, ¶0022) to receive a package substrate(3, ¶0022);
a bond head(20, ¶0022) to compress a die(6, ¶0022) against the package substrate(3, ¶0022); and
a heat source(23, ¶0022) thermally coupled to at least one of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) or the bond head(20, ¶0022).
Fujita is not relied on to teach the bond head(20, ¶0022) comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone.
Yasuyoshi teaches a thermal compression bonding (TCB) tool(Fig. 10) wherein the bond head(14, ¶0060) comprises a first thermal zone(S1, ¶0060) and a second thermal zone(S2, ¶0060);a separator(41, ¶0060) between the first thermal zone(S1, ¶0060) and the second thermal zone(S2, ¶0060). 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 device of Fujita, so that the bond head comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone, as taught by Yasuyoshi, in order to more effectively heat the whole region of the electronic part to a preferred temperature(¶0072).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita teaches the TCB tool of claim 1, wherein a curvature profile of the convex surface(12a, ¶0022) is to match to a warpage profile of the die(6, ¶0022) during bonding(¶0023).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita teaches the TCIB tool of claim 4, wherein the warpage profile is based on a die(6, ¶0022) backside layer on a surface of the die(6, ¶0022) opposite the package substrate(3, ¶0022) during bonding(¶0023).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record and Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1) in view of Kang (CN 1753160 A) of record.
Regarding claim 2, Fujita, in view of Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB tool of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach the convex surface(12a, ¶0022) of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters.
Kang teaches a TCB tool(Fig. 3) wherein the convex surface(212) of the pedestal(202, ¶0064) has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters(¶0073-74, ¶0064). 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 device of Fujita, so that the convex surface of the pedestal has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters, as taught by Kang, in order prevent the die and substrate from being deformed after the thermal compression bonding(¶0073).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita, in view of Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB tool of claim 2, but is not relied on to teach the convex surface(12a, ¶0022) of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) has a radius of curvature in the range of 1 meter to 75 meters.
Kang teaches a TCB tool(Fig. 3) wherein the convex surface(212) of the pedestal(202, ¶0064) has a radius of curvature in the range of 1 meter to 75 meters(¶0073-74, ¶0064). 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 device of Fujita, so that the convex surface of the pedestal has a radius of curvature in the range of 1 meter to 75 meters, as taught by Kang, in order prevent the die and substrate from being deformed after the thermal compression bonding(¶0073).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record and Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2014/0265165 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita, in view of Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB tool of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach the pedestal(10, ¶0019) comprises one or more vacuum channels extending through a body of the pedestal(10, ¶0019).
Lin teaches a TCB tool(Fig. 3) wherein the pedestal(306, ¶0028) comprises one or more vacuum channels(310, ¶0028) extending through a body of the pedestal(306, ¶0028). 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 device of Fujita, so that the pedestal comprises one or more vacuum channels extending through a body of the pedestal, as taught by Lin, in order to hold the package substrate in an aligned position(¶0028).
Regarding claim 7, Fujita, in view of Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB tool of claim 6, but are not relied on to teach the vacuum channels are to constrain the substrate to the curvature profile of the convex pedestal(10, ¶0019) surface.
Lin teaches a TCB tool(Fig. 3) wherein the vacuum channels(310, ¶0028) are to constrain the substrate(302, ¶0028) to the curvature profile of the convex pedestal surface(¶0006). 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 device of Fujita, so that the vacuum channels are to constrain the substrate to the curvature profile of the convex pedestal surface, as taught by Lin, in order to hold the package substrate in an aligned position(¶0028).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record and Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1) in view of Kito et al. (US 2014/0072774 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita, in view of Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB tool of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach the heat source(23, ¶0022) is integral to the pedestal(10, ¶0019).
Kito teaches an TCB tool(Fig. 44) wherein the heat source(470, ¶0272) is integral to the pedestal(460, ¶0272). 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 device of Fujita, so that the heat source is integral to the pedestal, as taught by Kito, in order to independently control the temperature of the pedestal(¶0274).
Regarding claim 9, Fujita, in view of Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB tool of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach the pedestal(10, ¶0019) comprises a metal or metal alloy.
Kito teaches an TCB tool(Fig. 44, Fig. 48) wherein the pedestal(460, ¶0272) comprises a metal(¶0284, ¶0272) or metal alloy. 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 device of Fujita, so that the pedestal comprises a metal or metal alloy, as taught by Kito, in order to use a highly rigid material so that the substrate, which is held by and pressed against the lower holding surface of the pedestal, is deformed and curved so that the central portion becomes convex upwards(¶0284).
Claims 10-12, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record in view of Lin et al. (US 2014/0265165 A1) of record, Kito et al. (US 2014/0072774 A1) of record and Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fujita teaches a thermal bonding compression (TCB) system(Fig. 5), comprising;
a bond head(20, ¶0022) to compress a die(6, ¶0022) to a package substrate(3, ¶0022);
a pedestal(10, ¶0019) opposite the bond head(20, ¶0022), wherein the pedestal(10, ¶0019) comprises a non-planar surface(3a) to receive the package substrate(3, ¶0022).
Fujita is not relied on to teach the bond head(20, ¶0022) comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone, one or more vacuum channels extending through a body of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) to secure the package substrate(3, ¶0022) during bonding to the die(6, ¶0022); and a heat source(23, ¶0022) integral to the pedestal(10, ¶0019).
Lin teaches a thermal bonding compression (TCB) system(Fig. 3) wherein the pedestal (306, ¶0028) comprises one or more vacuum channels(310, ¶0028) extending through a body of the pedestal(306, ¶0028) to secure the package substrate(302, ¶0028) during bonding to the die(300, ¶0028). 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 device of Fujita, so that the pedestal comprises one or more vacuum channels extending through a body of the pedestal to secure the package substrate during bonding to the die, as taught by Lin, in order to hold the package substrate in an aligned position(¶0028).
Fujita and Lin are not relied on to teach the bond head(20, ¶0022) comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone and a heat source(23, ¶0022) integral to the pedestal(10, ¶0019).
Kito teaches an thermal bonding compression (TCB) system(Fig. 44) wherein the heat source(470, ¶0272) is integral to the pedestal(460, ¶0272). 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 device of Fujita, so that the heat source is integral to the pedestal, as taught by Kito, in order to independently control the temperature of the pedestal(¶0274).
Fujita, Lin and Kito are not relied on to teach the bond head(20, ¶0022) comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone.
Yasuyoshi teaches a thermal compression bonding (TCB) system(Fig. 10) wherein the bond head(14, ¶0060) comprises a first thermal zone(S1, ¶0060) and a second thermal zone(S2, ¶0060);a separator(41, ¶0060) between the first thermal zone(S1, ¶0060) and the second thermal zone(S2, ¶0060). 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 device of Fujita, so that the bond head comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone, as taught by Yasuyoshi, in order to more effectively heat the whole region of the electronic part to a preferred temperature(¶0072).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita teaches the TCB system of claim 10.
Fujita in view of Lin, Kito and Yasuyoshi do not explicitly teach a temperature control device thermally coupled to the heat source(23, ¶0022). However Kito teaches the heat source(470, ¶0272) can independently control the temperature of the pedestal(¶0274). Accordantly, 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 device of Fujita, to include a temperature control device thermally coupled to the heat source, in order to facilitate the setting of process temperatures of the heat source.
Regarding claim 12, Fujita teaches the TCB system of claim 10, wherein the surface of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) comprises a convex curvature(¶0022) to receive the package substrate(3, ¶0022).
Regarding claim 14, Fujita teaches the TCB system of claim 12, wherein a curvature profile of the convex surface(12a, ¶0022) is to match to a warpage profile of the die(6, ¶0022) during bonding(¶0022).
Regarding claim 16, Fujita teaches a method of thermal compression bonding(Fig. 1), the method comprising:
placing a substrate(3, ¶0022) on a convex surface(12a, ¶0022) of a pedestal(10, ¶0019), wherein the pedestal(10, ¶0019) is coupled to a bond head(20, ¶0022) of a bonding system(20, ¶0022);
and compressing a die(6, ¶0022) comprising a die backside layer against the substrate(3, ¶0022) to bond(¶0033) the die(6, ¶0022) to the substrate(3, ¶0022).
Fujita is not relied on to teach the bond head(20, ¶0022) comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone, heating the pedestal(10, ¶0019); applying a vacuum through one or more channels of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) to provide a curvature profile to the substrate(3, ¶0022).
Lin teaches a method of thermal compression bonding(Fig. 3) applying a vacuum through one or more channels of the pedestal(306, ¶0028) c to provide a curvature profile to the substrate(302, ¶0028) during bonding to the die(300, ¶0028). 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 of Fujita, to include applying a vacuum through one or more channels of the pedestal, to provide a curvature profile to the substrate, as taught by Lin, in order to hold the package substrate in an aligned position(¶0028).
Fujita and Lin are not relied on to the bond head(20, ¶0022) comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone and teach heating the pedestal(10, ¶0019).
Kito teaches a method of thermal compression bonding(Fig. 44) comprising heating(¶0267) the pedestal(460, ¶0272). 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 device of Fujita, to include teach heating the pedestal, as taught by Kito, in order raise the temperature to a joining temperature(¶0267).
Fujita, Lin and Kito are not relied on to teach the bond head(20, ¶0022) comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone.
Yasuyoshi teaches a method of thermal compression bonding (TCB) system(Fig. 10) wherein the bond head(14, ¶0060) comprises a first thermal zone(S1, ¶0060) and a second thermal zone(S2, ¶0060);a separator(41, ¶0060) between the first thermal zone(S1, ¶0060) and the second thermal zone(S2, ¶0060). 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 of Fujita, so that the bond head comprises a first thermal zone and a second thermal zone; a separator between the first thermal zone and the second thermal zone, as taught by Yasuyoshi, in order to more effectively heat the whole region of the electronic part to a preferred temperature(¶0072).
Regarding claim 18, Fujita teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the convex surface(12a, ¶0022) is to provide a matching curvature profile of the substrate(3, ¶0022) to a warpage profile of the die(6, ¶0022) during the compressing(¶0022).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record, Lin et al. (US 2014/0265165 A1) of record and Kito et al. (US 2014/0072774 A1) of record and Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1) as applied to claims 10, 12 and 16 above, further in view of Kang (CN-1753160 A) of record.
Regarding claim 13, Fujita, in view of Lin, Kito and Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB tool of claim 12, wherein the convex surface(12a, ¶0022) of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters.
Kang teaches a TCB tool(Fig. 3) wherein the convex surface(212) of the pedestal(202, ¶0064) has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters(¶0073-74, ¶0064). 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 device of Fujita, so that the convex surface of the pedestal has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters, as taught by Kang, in order prevent the die and substrate from being deformed after the thermal compression bonding(¶0073).
Regarding claim 17, Fujita, in view of Lin, Kito and Yasuyoshi, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the convex surface(12a, ¶0022) of the pedestal(10, ¶0019) has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters.
Kang teaches a method of thermal compression bonding(Fig. 3) wherein the convex surface(212) of the pedestal(202, ¶0064) has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters(¶0073-74, ¶0064). 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 of Fujita, so that the convex surface of the pedestal has a radius of curvature in the range of 0.2 meters to 150 meters, as taught by Kang, in order prevent the die and substrate from being deformed after the thermal compression bonding(¶0073).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record, Lin et al. (US 2014/0265165 A1) of record, Kito et al. (US 2014/0072774 A1) of record and Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1) as applied to claims 10, further in view of Konishi et al. (JP 2010067922 A) of record.
Regarding claim 15, Fujita, in view of Lin, Kito and Yasuyoshi, teaches the TCB system of claim 10, but is not relied on to teach the pedestal(10, ¶0019) comprises at least one of steel, aluminum or copper.
Konishi teaches a TCB system(Fig. 1) wherein the pedestal(2, ¶0012) comprises at least one of steel(¶0012), aluminum or copper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the materials of steel, aluminum or copper for the pedestal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2006066566 A) of record, Lin et al. (US 2014/0265165 A1) of record, Kito et al. (US 2014/0072774 A1) of record and Yasuyoshi et al. (US 2015/0171048 A1) as applied to claims 16 and 18 above, further in view of Kira et al. (US 2017/0186721 A1) of record.
Regarding claim 19, Fujita, in view of in view of Lin, Kito and Yasuyoshi, teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the matching curvature profile of the substrate(3, ¶0022) to the warpage profile of the die(6, ¶0022) is provided by matching a chip gap across the substrate(3, ¶0022), wherein the chip gap comprises a distance between a die pad(6b, ¶0018) on the die(6, ¶0022) and a interconnect structure(6b, ¶0031) on the substrate(3, ¶0022).
Fujita, Lin, Kito and Yasuyoshi, are not relied on to teach a solder interconnect structure(6b, ¶0031).
Kira teaches a method (Fig. 11) comprising a solder interconnect structure(14B, ¶0063). 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 of Fujita, to include a solder interconnect structure, as taught by Kira, in order to ensure electrical conduction between the die and the substrate and the rigidity of the die(¶0063).
Regarding claim 20, Fujita teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the chip gap is substantially the same(¶0036) in peripheral regions of the substrate(3, ¶0022) as in central regions of the substrate(3, ¶0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 16 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.
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 LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LAURA M DYKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892