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 Interpretation
As noted in previous office action, examiner notes that present claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. For example, “microelectronic substrate” (claim 14), “microelectronic die” (claim 17) are workpiece materials which do not structurally limit the claimed bonding apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0098415, hereafter “Lee”) in view of Fujita (JP 2006066566-A, see attached document) & Ogawa et al. (US 6623577, hereafter “Ogawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a thermal compression bonding (TCB) assembly comprising: a bond head 114 (figs. 1-4) comprising a first thermal zone separated from a second thermal zone by a thermal separator 144/146 (vacuum channels) extending through a thickness of the bond head (fig. 2, [0033]); and a bond head nozzle 140/150 coupled to a first side of the bond head, wherein the bond head nozzle comprises one or more nozzle channels 142/152 (through holes) extending through a thickness of the bond head nozzle (fig. 2, [0031]). Examiner also notes that “thermal zone” is can be any thermal area and is not limited by particular dimensions or size.
Lee discloses a stage S (pedestal) working with the bond head (figs. 18-19, [0075]), but does not disclose the stage having a convex surface. Lee also lacks a control unit that couples the bond head to the pedestal; it is noted that ‘coupling’ does not require direct contact. The recited features are known in the art. Fujita (also directed to thermocompression bonding for semiconductor devices- abstract) discloses a thermocompression apparatus comprising a bond head 20 and a stage 10/12 (pedestal), wherein the stage 12 includes a convex surface 12a (curvature) for supporting a curved substrate or workpiece 3 (see figs. 2, 5; [0019, 0022]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a stage curvature surface similar to Fujita in the stage of Lee in order to support desired shape (curved) of the substrate being bonded. Concerning a control unit, Ogawa (also drawn to compression bonding machine and method) teaches the bonding apparatus comprising a bond head 26/28, a stage 29 (backup tool) (figs. 7-8) and a control unit 25 coupling the bond head to the stage (fig. 6), wherein the control unit serves to provide position adjustment of the stage for bonding components 2 to the substrate 1 by thermocompression (col. 7, lines 40-50; col. 8, lines 55-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a control unit coupling the bond head to the stage in the apparatus of Lee since it is conventional as evidenced by Ogawa and doing so would enable desired positional adjustment of the substrate during bonding.
Hence, Lee as modified by teachings of Fujita & Ogawa above discloses the TCB assembly comprising a pedestal/stage coupled to the bond head via a control unit, wherein the stage includes a convex surface.
As to claims 2-4, Lee discloses that the thermal separator comprises a space 144/146 (vacuum passage) between the first and second thermal zones, wherein the space extends through not less than half the thickness of the bond head, and the bond head nozzle is in fluid communication with the space of the thermal separator (fig. 2).
As to claim 6. Lee discloses that each of the thermal zones in the bond head comprise an independently controlled heating element 141 (heating sources), which are adjusted to control 2-dimensional temperature distribution in the heating surface which contacts the die workpiece (figs. 5-6, [0029]).
As to claim 8, Lee shows that in the bond head, the first thermal zone is in a central region of the bond head and the second thermal zone is in a peripheral region of the bond head surrounding the central region (fig. 2). Examiner notes that “region” is can be any area and is not limited by particular dimensions/size.
As to claim 9, Lee shows that the first thermal zone comprises a rectangular area and the second thermal zone comprises a rectangular annulus surrounding the first thermal zone (fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Lee shows that the bond head further comprises a third thermal zone 148/149 comprising a second rectangular annulus surrounding the second thermal zone (fig. 2).
As to claim 11, Lee shows that the first thermal zone comprises a rectangular area and the second thermal zone comprises one of a plurality of thermal zones surrounding the first thermal zone (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a thermal compression bonding (TCB) system comprising: a bond head 114 (figs. 1-4) comprising a first thermal zone separated from a second thermal zone by a thermal separator 142/144/146 (vacuum channels) extending through a thickness of the bond head (fig. 2, [0033]); and a bond head nozzle 140/150 coupled to a first side of the bond head, wherein the bond head nozzle comprises one or more nozzle channels 142/152 (through holes) extending through a thickness of the bond head nozzle (fig. 2, [0031]). Examiner also notes that “thermal zone” is can be any thermal area and is not limited by particular dimensions/size. .
Lee discloses a stage S (pedestal) working with the bond head (figs. 18-19, [0075]), but does not disclose the stage having a convex surface. Lee also lacks a control unit that couples the bond head to the pedestal; it is noted that ‘coupling’ does not require direct contact. The recited features are known in the art. Fujita (also directed to thermocompression bonding for semiconductor devices- abstract) discloses a thermocompression apparatus comprising a bond head 20 and a stage 10/12 (pedestal), wherein the stage 12 includes a convex surface 12a (curvature) for supporting a curved substrate or workpiece 3 (see figs. 2, 5; [0019, 0022]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a stage curvature surface similar to Fujita in the stage of Lee in order to support desired shape (curved) of the substrate being bonded. Concerning a control unit, Ogawa (also drawn to compression bonding machine and method) teaches the bonding apparatus comprising a bond head 26/28, a stage 29 (backup tool) (figs. 7-8) and a control unit 25 coupling the bond head to the stage (fig. 6), wherein the control unit serves to provide position adjustment of the stage for bonding components 2 to the substrate 1 by thermocompression (col. 7, lines 40-50; col. 8, lines 55-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a control unit coupling the bond head to the stage in the apparatus of Lee since it is conventional as evidenced by Ogawa and doing so would enable desired positional adjustment of the substrate during bonding.
Hence, Lee as modified by teachings of Fujita & Ogawa above discloses the TCB assembly comprising a pedestal/stage coupled to the bond head via a control unit, wherein the stage includes a convex surface.
As to claim 13, Lee discloses that the thermal separator comprises a vacuum channel 116 with a vacuum port 142/152 in a center portion (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art to select any suitable shape, including circular, oval or rectangular, for the vacuum port in the bond head of Lee since selecting a shape is a matter of choice within common knowledge in the art absent persuasive objective evidence that the particular configuration is critical or significant (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)).
As to claim 15, Lee discloses that the bond head comprises a plurality of thermal zones each separated by a thermal separator structure 144/146, wherein each thermal zone is capable of being independently controlled by heating elements 141, which are adjusted to control 2-dimensional temperature distribution in the heating surface which contacts the die workpiece (figs. 5-6, [0029]).
As to claim 17, the bond head nozzle 150 in Lee is capable of receiving a microelectronic die D (fig. 3), wherein the microelectronic die comprises a back side layer comprising a thickness between 50 microns to 500 microns. Examiner notes that specific features of die workpiece do not limit the bond head nozzle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fujita & Ogawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 8177862, “Hwang”).
As to claim 5, Lee is silent with respect to thermal conductivity or material of the bond head. Analogous to Lee, Hwang (also drawn to thermal compressive bond head- title) discloses a TCB bond head 28 comprising vacuum channel 30 as thermal separator (fig. 1a), wherein the bond head comprises parts formed of aluminum nitride (col. 2, lines 44-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the bond head structure out of aluminum nitride in the bond head of Lee since such material is conventionally known for TCB, as evidenced by Hwang. Consequently, the first and second zones of the bond head in Lee comprises a first material (aluminum nitride) having a first thermal conductivity greater than a second thermal conductivity of a second material (vacuum/air) of the thermal separator.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fujita & Ogawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang (CN 1753160-A, see attached document) & Maki et al. (US 2005/0061856, “Maki”).
As to claim 7, although Fujita is silent with respect to radius of curvature of the stage curvature surface 12a, it appears to be in the broad range of 0.2-150 m as seen in figs. 2 & 5. Nonetheless, Kang teaches a thermocompression bonding tool wherein a convex surface 212 of the pedestal 202 (fig. 3) has an exemplary radius of curvature of 2.5 m which prevents the substrate from being deformed (pg. 16), which value falls within the claimed range of 0.2-150 m. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the radius of curvature in a suitable range 1-10 m in the stage of Lee, Fujita & Ogawa in order to prevent the die and the substrate from being deformed after the thermal compression bonding, as suggested by Kang.
Lee does not mention a heated pedestal. However, such feature is known in the art. Maki (also directed to bonding chips to substrate by thermocompression- [0009]) teaches a bond head comprising a supporting stage/pedestal 10b for workpieces (chips/substrate) during thermal compressing bonding, wherein the stage/pedestal 10b includes heater 10c incorporated therein for directly heating the chips during bonding; a load control is also provided for desired preset load including adjusting the height of the heating stage (figs. 11-15, [0142, 0145-0151, 0153]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a heated stage/pedestal in the TCB apparatus of Lee because doing so would enable to heat the workpieces to necessary temperature(s) during the compression bonding process.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fujita & Ogawa as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Maki et al. (US 2005/0061856).
As to claim 14, Lee does not mention a heated pedestal or temperature control device. However, Maki (also directed to bonding chips to substrate by thermocompression- [0009]) teaches a bond head comprising a supporting stage/pedestal 10b for workpieces (chips/substrate) during thermal compressing bonding, wherein the stage/pedestal 10b includes a heater 10c incorporated therein for directly heating the chips during bonding; a load control is also provided for desired preset load including adjusting the height of the heating stage (figs. 11-15, [0142, 0145-0151, 0153]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a heated stage/pedestal in the bond head of Lee in order to support the workpieces and doing so would enable to heat the workpieces to necessary temperature during the compression bonding process.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fujita & Ogawa as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 8177862).
As to claim 16, Lee or Maki is silent with respect to material of the bond head such as aluminum nitride or silicon nitride. However, such feature is known in the art. Analogous to Lee, Hwang (also drawn to thermal compressive bond head- title) discloses a TCB bond head, wherein the bond head comprises parts formed of aluminum nitride (col. 2, lines 44-49). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the bond head parts out of aluminum nitride in the bond head of Lee since such material is conventionally known for TCB, as evidenced by Hwang.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcomes previous 102 rejection under Lee. The arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection(s) set forth above. Current 103 rejection(s) now relying on disclosure of Fujita, which teaches a stage/pedestal having a convex surface and addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735