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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed May 29, 2026. Claims 1, 21, and 29 are amended. The Examiner notes that claims 1, 3-8, 21-32 and 34 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 21-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “significant warpage” in claims 1, 21, and 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant warpage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although the claim terminology is found in para. [0049], it is not clear from the specification what amount of warpage is considered “significant” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the meaning of the term of degree from reading the disclosure (see MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Dependent claim(s) 3-8, 22-28, 30-32, and 34 is/are rejected at least on the same basis as the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2018/0126718 A1) in view of Maki (US 2008/0318346 A1), Nishri (US 2022/0250168 A1), Pei (US 2016/0126226 A1), Sreenivasan (US 2021/0134640 A1), Choi (US 2023/0163094 A1), Tsuno (US 2011/0011536 A1), and Araki (JP 2002184847 A).
With respect to claim 1, Woo teaches:
A method for forming a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a wafer (para 27 “holding element”) with multiple semiconductor dies (para. 27, “electrical component”, para. 52 “predetermined number of electrical components”);
picking the semiconductor die up with a collector element (para. 27, Fig. 3, flip head collet 308);
flip-chipping the semiconductor die with the collector element (Fig. 3);
picking up the semiconductor die (para. 27, “electrical component”) from the collector element (308) using a bond-head element (bond head collet 304) (para. 41, When the bond head 302 is at the alignment position, the electrical component is transferred from the flip head collet 310 to the bond head collet 304”);
and bonding the semiconductor die (“electrical component”) to a carrier (bonding pad 606) using the bond-head element (bond head collet 304) (para. 51)
Woo fails to teach:
an adhesive film held by a frame element;
lifting a semiconductor die up from the wafer using an ejector element;
performing a measurement of a warpage of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor;
increasing a magnitude of a vacuum force applied by the bond-head element while the semiconductor die is held by the bond-head element and a significant warpage is measured;
measuring a tilt of the carrier relative to a horizontal plane using a tilt sensor on the bond-head element before the semiconductor die is bonded to the carrier
and operating a tilt mechanism disposed on corners of a stage holding the carrier to adjust the tilt to level the carrier relative to the horizontal plane while the carrier is on the stage.
Maki teaches:
an adhesive film (Fig. 5-7, dicing tape 4) held by a frame element (wafer ring 5);
lifting a semiconductor die (Fig. 30, chip 1) up from the wafer using an ejector element (block 110c of chucking piece 102);
Woo discloses the claimed invention except for the adhesive film held by a frame element and using an ejector element to lift a semiconductor die. Maki teaches that it is known hold an adhesive film with a frame element and lift a semiconductor die with an ejector element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo as taught by Maki for the purpose of reducing defects and increasing speed in the manufacturing process (para. 29 of Maki), See MPEP 2144.
Pei teaches:
performing a measurement of a warpage of the semiconductor die (para. 48 “the corresponding warpage of the package may be determined by measuring and analyzing the moiré pattern using a defect inspector.”)
Sreenivasan teaches:
performing a measurement of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor (para. 50-56 give the order of steps “3. Element pickup 4. Alignment of elements to product substrate and temporary attachment 5. Bonding” para. 47 specifies that the process of alignment uses moire based metrology as used in Pei.)
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Pei to measure warpage of the die with the teachings of Sreenivasan that the kind of measurement taught by Pei may be used while the die is attached to the bond head to teach:
performing a measurement of a warpage of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor;
Woo/Maki discloses the claimed invention except for the measurement of warpage on the bond-head element. Pei teaches that it is known to measure the warpage of a semiconductor die using moire metrology and Sreenivasan teaches that it is known to use moire-based metrology on a die while it is on a bond-head element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki as taught by Pei and Sreenivasan for the purpose of “achiev[ing] sub-100 nm and in some embodiments sub-25 nm or even sub-10 nm alignment in assembly” (Sreenivasan paragraph 47) and finding “desired parameters for the composition” (Pei paragraph 48), See MPEP 2144.
Nishri teaches:
increasing a magnitude of a vacuum force applied by the bond-head element while the semiconductor die is held by the bond-head element and a significant warpage is measured. (para. 49 “a sensor may be operated to sense the topography of the surface of a particular workpiece”, para 69 “a chuck may be configured to increase the suction that is applied to acquire and hold a warped workpiece without flattening the workpiece. For example, a chuck may be configured to dynamically adjust the rate of inflow through each vacuum port in order to maximize the suction that is applied to those vacuum ports that have acquired a region of the workpiece.”)
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan discloses the claimed invention except increasing the warpage when. Pei teaches that it is known adjust the vacuum chuck to warpage by increasing the suction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan as taught by Nishri for the purpose of holding a warped workpiece (para. 69 of Nishri), See MPEP 2144.
Choi teaches in Fig. 4:
measuring a tilt of the carrier (substrate 104) relative to a horizontal plane (para. 45 “parallelism between the chip 102 and the substrate 104) using a tilt sensor (claim 13, “air gyro.” It is known in the art that a gyroscope/gyrometer may be used to measure orientation ) on the bond-head element (bonding head 150) (Fig. 4 shows the tilt adjusting driver 156 is on bonding head 150, claim 13 “wherein the tilt adjusting driver comprises an air gyro”), before the semiconductor die (chip 102) is bonded to the carrier (substrate 104) (para. 45 “the controller adjusts the parallelism between the chip 102 and the substrate 104 through the tilt adjusting driver”)
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri discloses the claimed invention except measuring the tilt of the carrier using a tilt sensor. Choi teaches that it is known to measure the tilt of the cariier using a tilt sensor on the bond-head element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan as taught by Choi for the purpose of “adjusting the parallelism between the chip and the substrate” (para. 45 of Choi), See MPEP 2144.
Tsuno teaches:
operating a tilt mechanism to adjust the tilt to level the carrier relative to the horizontal plane. (para. 15 “the room temperature bonding apparatus can use the angle adjustment mechanism to change a direction of the first substrate such that a first surface of the first substrate, which faces to the second substrate, and a second surface of the second substrate, which faces to the first substrate, come into parallel contact with each other”)
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi discloses the claimed invention except adjusting the tilt with a tilt mechanism disposed on corners of a stage while the carrier is on the stage. Tsuno teaches that it is known to adjust the tilt of the carrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi as taught by Tsuno for the purpose of causing the substrates to come into parallel contact with each other and uniformly impose the larger load on a bonding surface (para. 15 of Tsuno) See MPEP 2144.
Araki teaches in Figs. 4-5:
and operating a tilt mechanism (mechanism 124 including height adjustment posts 126) disposed on corners of a stage (heating and laminating stage 122) holding the carrier (wafer 12) while the carrier (12) is on the stage (para. 13 “The tilting mechanism 124 is configured such that the heating and laminating stage 122 is supported by four height adjustment posts 126 that can be moved up and down and are arranged at the four corners of a fixed stage 125 below it, and by changing the height of these four height adjustment posts 126,” “The tilt direction and tilt angle are determined by the control unit 123 so that the lateral shear stress on the wafer 12 caused by the airflow and the sliding stress on the wafer 12 caused by the tilt of the thermal bonding stage 122 are balanced.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Woo, Maki, Pei, Sreenivasan, Nishri, Choi and Tsuno with the tilt adjustment mechanism of Araki to have the tilt adjustment mechanism attached to the corners of the stage. The claim would have been obvious because the technique of adjusting tilt using an adjustment mechanism attached to the corners of the stage was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by Araki. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 3, Woo further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: performing an alignment check (step 420, para. 40) to determine a position of the semiconductor die between a center of the bond-head element (bond head collet 304) and a center of the semiconductor die (electrical component). (para. 55 The bond head 302 is then moved to a position at which the center of the bond head collet 304 is aligned with the center of the electrical component)
With respect to claim 4, Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/NIshri/Choi/Tsuno/Araki do not explicitly teach:
method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the measurement to the warpage of the semiconductor die is performed prior to the alignment check.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the warpage prior to alignment check. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to order the measurements this way for the purpose of using information about the warpage to adjust the ideal alignment positions based on warpage parameters.
With respect to claim 21, Woo teaches:
picking the semiconductor die (“electrical component”) up using a collector element (para. 27, Fig. 3, the flip head collet 310 is facing the holding element (downwards away from the rail 318) so as to retrieve the electrical component);
transferring the semiconductor die (“electrical component) from the collector element (308) to a bond-head element (304) (para. 41, When the bond head 302 is at the alignment position, the electrical component is transferred from the flip head collet 310 to the bond head collet 304”);
and bonding the semiconductor die (“electrical component”) to a carrier (bonding pad 606) using the bond-head element (bond head collet 304)
Woo fails to teach:
aligning a semiconductor die with an ejector element;
lifting the semiconductor die up using the ejector element;
performing a measurement of a warpage of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor
increasing a magnitude of a vacuum force applied by the bond-head element while the semiconductor die is held by the bond-head element and a significant warpage is measured;
measuring a tilt of the carrier relative to a horizontal plane using a tilt sensor on the bond-head element before the semiconductor die is bonded to the carrier
and operating a tilt mechanism disposed on corners of a stage holding the carrier to adjust the tilt to level the carrier relative to the horizontal plane while the carrier is on the stage.
Maki teaches:
aligning a semiconductor die (chip 1) with an ejector element (chucking piece 102) (para. 583 “Alignment is made so that the chip 1 concerned is positioned centrally of both chucking piece 102 and chucking collet 105);
lifting a semiconductor die (Fig. 30, chip 1) up from the wafer using an ejector element (block 110c of chucking piece 102);
Woo discloses the claimed invention except for alignment of the semiconductor die with an ejector element and using the ejector element to lift a semiconductor die. Maki teaches that it is known to align the die with the ejector element and lift a semiconductor die with the ejector element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo as taught by Maki for the purpose of reducing defects and increasing speed in the manufacturing process (para. 29 of Maki), See MPEP 2144.
Pei teaches:
performing a measurement of a warpage of the semiconductor die (para. 48 “the corresponding warpage of the package may be determined by measuring and analyzing the moiré pattern using a defect inspector.”)
Sreenivasan teaches:
performing a measurement of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor (para. 50-56 give the order of steps “3. Element pickup 4. Alignment of elements to product substrate and temporary attachment 5. Bonding” para. 47 specifies that the process of alignment uses moire based metrology as used in Pei.)
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Pei to measure warpage of the die with the teachings of Sreenivasan that the kind of measurement taught by Pei may be used while the die is attached to the bond head to teach:
performing a measurement of a warpage of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor;
Woo/Maki discloses the claimed invention except for the measurement of warpage on the bond-head element. Pei teaches that it is known to measure the warpage of a semiconductor die using moire metrology and Sreenivasan teaches that it is known to use moire-based metrology on a die while it is on a bond-head element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki as taught by Pei and Sreenivasan for the purpose of “achiev[ing] sub-100 nm and in some embodiments sub-25 nm or even sub-10 nm alignment in assembly” (Sreenivasan paragraph 47) and finding “desired parameters for the composition” (Pei paragraph 48), See MPEP 2144.
Nishri teaches:
increasing a magnitude of a vacuum force applied by the bond-head element while the semiconductor die is held by the bond-head element and a significant warpage is measured. (para. 49 “a sensor may be operated to sense the topography of the surface of a particular workpiece”, para 69 “a chuck may be configured to increase the suction that is applied to acquire and hold a warped workpiece without flattening the workpiece. For example, a chuck may be configured to dynamically adjust the rate of inflow through each vacuum port in order to maximize the suction that is applied to those vacuum ports that have acquired a region of the workpiece.”)
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan discloses the claimed invention except increasing the warpage when. Pei teaches that it is known adjust the vacuum chuck to warpage by increasing the suction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan as taught by Nishri for the purpose of holding a warped workpiece (para. 69 of Nishri), See MPEP 2144.
Choi teaches in Fig. 4:
measuring a tilt of the carrier (substrate 104) relative to a horizontal plane (para. 45 “parallelism between the chip 102 and the substrate 104) using a tilt sensor (claim 13, “air gyro.” It is known in the art that a gyroscope/gyrometer may be used to measure orientation ) on the bond-head element (bonding head 150) (Fig. 4 shows the tilt adjusting driver 156 is on bonding head 150, claim 13 “wherein the tilt adjusting driver comprises an air gyro”), before the semiconductor die (chip 102) is bonded to the carrier (substrate 104) (para. 45 “the controller adjusts the parallelism between the chip 102 and the substrate 104 through the tilt adjusting driver”)
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri discloses the claimed invention except measuring the tilt of the carrier using a tilt sensor. Choi teaches that it is known to measure the tilt of the cariier using a tilt sensor on the bond-head element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan as taught by Choi for the purpose of “adjusting the parallelism between the chip and the substrate” (para. 45 of Choi), See MPEP 2144.
Tsuno teaches:
operating a tilt mechanism to adjust the tilt to level the carrier relative to the horizontal plane. (para. 15 “the room temperature bonding apparatus can use the angle adjustment mechanism to change a direction of the first substrate such that a first surface of the first substrate, which faces to the second substrate, and a second surface of the second substrate, which faces to the first substrate, come into parallel contact with each other”)
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi discloses the claimed invention except adjusting the tilt with a tilt mechanism disposed on corners of a stage while the carrier is on the stage. Tsuno teaches that it is known to adjust the tilt of the carrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi as taught by Tsuno for the purpose of causing the substrates to come into parallel contact with each other and uniformly impose the larger load on a bonding surface (para. 15 of Tsuno) See MPEP 2144.
Araki teaches in Figs. 4-5:
and operating a tilt mechanism (mechanism 124 including height adjustment posts 126) disposed on corners of a stage (heating and laminating stage 122) holding the carrier while the carrier is on the stage (para. 13 “The tilting mechanism 124 is configured such that the heating and laminating stage 122 is supported by four height adjustment posts 126 that can be moved up and down and are arranged at the four corners of a fixed stage 125 below it, and by changing the height of these four height adjustment posts 126,” “The tilt direction and tilt angle are determined by the control unit 123 so that the lateral shear stress on the wafer 12 caused by the airflow and the sliding stress on the wafer 12 caused by the tilt of the thermal bonding stage 122 are balanced.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Woo, Maki, Pei, Sreenivasan, Nishri, Choi and Tsuno with the tilt adjustment mechanism of Araki to have the tilt adjustment mechanism attached to the corners of the stage. The claim would have been obvious because the technique of adjusting tilt using an adjustment mechanism attached to the corners of the stage was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by Araki. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 22, Woo further teaches:
checking a position of the semiconductor die (“electrical component”) before transferring the semiconductor die from the collector element (flip head collet 308) to the bond-head element (bond head collet 304). (para. 29 “the flip head alignment optic 314 is directed downwards towards the flip head collet 310”)
With respect to claim 23, Sreenivasan further teaches in Fig. 10:
wherein picking the semiconductor die (layered silicon 203) up using the collector element (superstrate 1004) further comprises providing a vacuum force (para. 96 “vacuum is pulled through the superstrate 1004) to a channel (vacuum channels 1002) of the collector element to pick up the semiconductor die.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further incorporate the teachings of Sreenivasan into the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki to use vacuum force in the collector element. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Woo in the manner set forth above for the purpose of enabling “highly accurate, parallel assembly” (abstract of Sreenivasan.)
With respect to claim 24, Sreenivasan further teaches:
wherein the channel is located at a center of the collector element (Fig. 10 of Sreenivasan, the middle vacuum hole is in the center of the superstrate)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woo in view of Sreenivasan as explained above.
With respect to claim 25, Woo further teaches:
wherein the center of the collector element (flip head 308) is misaligned with a center of the semiconductor die (“electrical component). (para. 55 “after the flip head 308 retrieves the electrical component and is inverted back to the second orientation, an image of the electrical component may be captured by the flip head alignment optic 314 and a position of the electrical component relative to the flip head alignment optic 314 may be determined using the captured image. More specifically, an offset of the center of the electrical component from the center of the flip head alignment optic 314 may be determined using the captured image.)
With respect to claim 26,
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi/Tsuno/Araki as applied above fail to teach:
wherein transferring the semiconductor die from the collector element to the bond-head element further comprises providing a vacuum force to a channel of the bond-head element to pick up the semiconductor die.
Sreenivasan further teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 11:
A method in which a semiconductor die is picked up by a superstrate 1004 through vacuum holes 1101. Using this embodiment as the bond-head and the embodiment of Fig. 10 for the collector element as described in claim 21 upon which claim 21 depends meets the limitation:
wherein transferring the semiconductor die (203) from the collector element (1004 in Fig. 10) to the bond-head element (1004 in Fig. 11) further comprises providing a vacuum force to a channel (vacuum hole 1101) of the bond-head element to pick up the semiconductor die (203).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sreenivasan into the method of Woo to use vacuum force in the bond-head element. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Woo in the manner set forth above for the purpose of enabling “highly accurate, parallel assembly” (abstract of Sreenivasan.)
With respect to claim 27, Sreenivasan further teaches:
wherein the channel (vacuum hole 1101 of Sreenivasan) is offset from a center of the bond-head element (1104)(Fig. 11 of Sreenivasan).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woo in view of Sreenivasan as explained above.
With respect to claim 28, Woo further teaches:
wherein transferring the semiconductor die (“electrical component”) from the collector element (flip head collet 308) to the bond-head element (bond head collet 304) further comprises aligning a center of the bond-head element with a center of the semiconductor die. (para. 41 “The bond head 302 is then moved to the alignment position at which the center of the bond head collet 304 is aligned with the center of the flip head collet 310. When the bond head 302 is at the alignment position, the electrical component is transferred from the flip head collet 310 to the bond head collet 304.”)
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2018/0126718 A1) in view of Maki (US 2008/0318346 A1), Pei (US 2016/0126226 A1), Sreenivasan (US 2021/0134640 A1), Nishri (US 2022/0250168 A1), Choi (US 2023/0163094 A1), Tsuno (US 2011/0011536 A1) and Araki (JP 2002184847 A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pan (Review of Scientific Instruments 77(4)).
With respect to claim 5, Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi/Tsuno/Araki fails to teach:
wherein performing the measurement to the warpage of the semiconductor die further comprises moving the sensor relative to the semiconductor die.
However, Pei teaches the use of the moiré interferometry method to measure warpage (para. 47-48).
Pan teaches:
wherein performing the measurement to the warpage (col. 3, para. 2, line 2 “LSCM with moiré method for deformation measurement”) of the semiconductor die further comprises moving (“rotating mirrors mounted on motor”) the sensor (col 3, para. 3, mirrors attached to a motor, pinhole, and CCD target) relative to the semiconductor die (“specimen”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pan into the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki to use a LSCM to measure the moire interference pattern in order to measure warpage and this process involves moving the sensor. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi in the manner set forth above for the purpose of using a “high accuracy technique for measuring and observing in-plane microdeformation” (abstract of Pan).
With respect to claim 6, Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki fails to teach:
wherein performing the measurement to the warpage of the semiconductor die further comprises measuring heights of a plurality of points on the semiconductor die, and the number of the points is between about 9 to about 900.
Pan teaches:
wherein performing the measurement to the warpage (scanning of moire patterns with LSCM) of the semiconductor die (specimen) further comprises measuring heights of a plurality of points (scanning lines) on the semiconductor die, and the number of the points is between about 9 to about 900 (the number of scanning lines N can be chosen to be 128, 256, 512).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pan into the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Tsuno/Araki to measure 128, 256, or 512 points. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki in the manner set forth above for the purpose of effectively and accurately “measuring and observing in-plane microdeformation at micrometer scale.” (abstract of Pan)
With respect to claim 7, Pan further teaches:
wherein the points each have an elongated shape. (Fig. 3 of Pan)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woo in view of Pan as explained above.
With respect to claim 8, Pan further teaches:
wherein a length (the shorter length of a scanning line, the pitch = (scan size)/(number of lines)) of each of the points is between about 0.1 µm to about 600 µm (Fig. 4 of Pan includes a scan size of 398.52 µm with 512 scanning lines, for a length of each point of 0.8 µm, within the range)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woo in view of Pan as explained above.
Claims 29, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2018/0126718 A1) in view Pei (US 2016/0126226 A1), Sreenivasan (US 2021/0134640 A1), Nishri (US 2022/0250168 A1), Choi (US 2023/0163094 A1), Tsuno (US 2011/0011536 A1) and Araki (JP 2002184847 A).
With respect to claim 29, Woo teaches:
A method for forming a semiconductor device, comprising:
picking up a semiconductor die using a bond-head element (para. 41, “the electrical component is transferred from the flip head collet 310 to the bond head collet 304”);
and bonding the semiconductor die (“electrical component”) to a carrier (bonding pad 606) using the bond-head element (bond head collet 304) (para. 51)
Woo fails to teach:
measuring a warpage of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor;
increasing a magnitude of a vacuum force applied by the bond-head element while the semiconductor die is held by the bond-head element and a significant warpage is measured;
measuring a tilt of the carrier relative to a horizontal plane using a tilt sensor on the bond-head element before the semiconductor die is bonded to the carrier
and operating a tilt mechanism disposed on corners of a stage holding the carrier to adjust the tilt to level the carrier relative to the horizontal plane while the carrier is on the stage.
Pei teaches:
performing a measurement of a warpage of the semiconductor die (para. 48 “the corresponding warpage of the package may be determined by measuring and analyzing the moiré pattern using a defect inspector.”)
Sreenivasan teaches:
performing a measurement of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element using a sensor (para. 50-56 give the order of steps “3. Element pickup 4. Alignment of elements to product substrate and temporary attachment 5. Bonding” para. 47 specifies that the process of alignment uses moire based metrology as used in Pei.)
Woo discloses the claimed invention except for the measurement of warpage on the bond-head element. Pei teaches that it is known to measure the warpage of a semiconductor die using moire metrology and Sreenivasan teaches that it is known to use moire-based metrology on a die while it is on a bond-head element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo as taught by Pei and Sreenivasan for the purpose of “achiev[ing] sub-100 nm and in some embodiments sub-25 nm or even sub-10 nm alignment in assembly” (Sreenivasan paragraph 47) and finding “desired parameters for the composition” (Pei paragraph 48), See MPEP 2144.
Nishri teaches:
increasing a magnitude of a vacuum force applied by the bond-head element while the semiconductor die is held by the bond-head element and a significant warpage is measured. (para. 49 “a sensor may be operated to sense the topography of the surface of a particular workpiece”, para 69 “a chuck may be configured to increase the suction that is applied to acquire and hold a warped workpiece without flattening the workpiece. For example, a chuck may be configured to dynamically adjust the rate of inflow through each vacuum port in order to maximize the suction that is applied to those vacuum ports that have acquired a region of the workpiece.”)
Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan discloses the claimed invention except increasing the warpage when. Pei teaches that it is known adjust the vacuum chuck to warpage by increasing the suction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan as taught by Nishri for the purpose of holding a warped workpiece (para. 69 of Nishri), See MPEP 2144.
Choi teaches in Fig. 4:
measuring the tilt of the carrier (substrate 104) relative to a horizontal plane (para. 45 “parallelism between the chip 102 and the substrate 104) using a tilt sensor (claim 13, “air gyro.” It is known in the art that a gyroscope/gyrometer may be used to measure orientation ) on the bond-head element (bonding head 150) (Fig. 4 shows the tilt adjusting driver 156 is on bonding head 150, claim 13 “wherein the tilt adjusting driver comprises an air gyro”), before the semiconductor die (chip 102) is bonded to the carrier (substrate 104) (para. 45 “the controller adjusts the parallelism between the chip 102 and the substrate 104 through the tilt adjusting driver”)
Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri discloses the claimed invention except measuring the tilt of the carrier using a tilt sensor. Choi teaches that it is known to measure the tilt of the cariier using a tilt sensor on the bond-head element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri as taught by Choi for the purpose of “adjusting the parallelism between the chip and the substrate” (para. 45 of Choi), See MPEP 2144.
Tsuno teaches:
operating a tilt mechanism to adjust the tilt to level the carrier relative to the horizontal plane. (para. 15 “the room temperature bonding apparatus can use the angle adjustment mechanism to change a direction of the first substrate such that a first surface of the first substrate, which faces to the second substrate, and a second surface of the second substrate, which faces to the first substrate, come into parallel contact with each other”)
Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi discloses the claimed invention except adjusting the tilt with a tilt mechanism disposed on corners of a stage while the carrier is on the stage. Tsuno teaches that it is known to adjust the tilt of the carrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Woo/Maki/Pei/Sreenivasan/Nishri/Choi as taught by Tsuno for the purpose of causing the substrates to come into parallel contact with each other and uniformly impose the larger load on a bonding surface (para. 15 of Tsuno) See MPEP 2144.
Araki teaches in Figs. 4-5:
and operating a tilt mechanism (mechanism 124 including height adjustment posts 126) disposed on corners of a stage (heating and laminating stage 122) holding the carrier (wafer 12) while the carrier (12) is on the stage (para. 13 “The tilting mechanism 124 is configured such that the heating and laminating stage 122 is supported by four height adjustment posts 126 that can be moved up and down and are arranged at the four corners of a fixed stage 125 below it, and by changing the height of these four height adjustment posts 126,” “The tilt direction and tilt angle are determined by the control unit 123 so that the lateral shear stress on the wafer 12 caused by the airflow and the sliding stress on the wafer 12 caused by the tilt of the thermal bonding stage 122 are balanced.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno with the tilt adjustment mechanism of Araki to have the tilt adjustment mechanism attached to the corners of the stage. The claim would have been obvious because the technique of adjusting tilt using an adjustment mechanism attached to the corners of the stage was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by Araki. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 31, Pei further teaches that the method of measuring warpage is by emitting a moire pattern (para. 48 “the corresponding warpage of the package may be determined by measuring and analyzing the moiré pattern using a defect inspector.”)
Therefore, modifying Woo by Pei, Sreenivasan, and Choi as described with respect to claim 29 upon which claim 31 depends above meets the limitation:
wherein measuring the warpage of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element comprises emitting a moir6 pattern from the sensor to measure a profile of the semiconductor die.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woo in view of Pei as explained above.
With respect to claim 34, Choi further teaches:
wherein the tilt sensor and the tilt mechanism operate before and after the semiconductor die is bonded to the carrier (para. 45 “As the chip 102 reaches a bonding position with the substrate, the bonding head 150 corrects for any position error by adjusting a theta axis through the theta axis driver 152 (refer to FIG. 4 ) “, “Thereafter (or at the same time, or just before), the controller adjusts the parallelism between the chip 102 and the substrate 104 through the tilt adjusting driver”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Woo in view of Choi as explained above.
Claims 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2018/0126718 A1) in view of Pei (US 2016/0126226 A1), Sreenivasan (US 2021/0134640 A1), Nishri (US 2022/0250168 A1), Choi (US 2023/0163094 A1), Tsuno (US 2011/0011536 A1) and Araki (JP 2002184847 A) as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Pan (Review of Scientific Instruments 77(4)).
With respect to claim 30, Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki are silent to:
wherein the sensor is movable, and measuring the warpage of the semiconductor die on the bond-head element comprises measuring heights of different points on a bottom surface of the semiconductor die using the movable sensor
Pan teaches
wherein the sensor (col 3, para. 3, mirrors attached to a motor, pinhole, and CCD target) is movable (“rotating mirrors mounted on motor”), and measuring the warpage (scanning of moire patterns with LSCM) of the semiconductor die (specimen) on the bond-head element comprises measuring heights of different points (scanning lines) on a bottom surface of the semiconductor die using the movable sensor (mirrors scan the laser across the specimen located in the front focus of microscope.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pan into the method of Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki to use a movable sensor to measure different points on the surface of a semiconductor die. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan in the manner set forth above for the purpose of effectively and accurately “measuring and observing in-plane microdeformation at micrometer scale.” (abstract of Pan)
Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2018/0126718 A1) in view of Pei (US 2016/0126226 A1), Sreenivasan (US 2021/0134640 A1), Nishri (US 2022/0250168 A1), Choi (US 2023/0163094 A1), Tsuno (US 2011/0011536 A1) and Araki (JP 2002184847 A) as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Bai (Sensors 19(16), page 3592)
With respect to claim 32, Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki fail to teach:
wherein the sensor comprises a chromatic focal lens configured to measure light reflected from a plurality of portions of the semiconductor die to determine the warpage of the semiconductor die
Bai teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a chromatic focal lens (chromatic confocal technology) configured to measure light reflected from a plurality of portions of the semiconductor die to determine the warpage of the semiconductor die (“Chromatic confocal technology (CCT) is one of the most promising methods for the contactless and accurate measurement of structure profiles. Based on the principles of chromatic dispersion and confocal theory, a dispersion probe is proposed and optimized with several commercial and cheap refractive index lenses”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bai into the method of Woo/Pei/Sreenivasan/Choi/Nishri/Tsuno/Araki to use a chromatic focal lens in the sensor. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Woo in the manner set forth above for the purpose of making “contactless and accurate measurement of structure profiles.” (abstract of Bai).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 21, 29, and their dependents 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/A.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights