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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The Amendments filed February 17th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/16/2025 are noted.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection(s)
previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/16/2025, so the 35 U.S.C. § 112
rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s other amendments to the claims are noted.
3. Claims 13-16 and 20 are now withdrawn; Claims 1-12 and 17-19 remain pending in the application.
4. Claims 1-12 and 17-19 have been fully considered in examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0375819A1) in view of Pendse (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0098729A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method of bonding [see title, 0026] a die (46) fig. 4A [0024] to a substrate (22) fig. 4A [0024], comprising:
receiving the substrate (22) fig. 4A [0024] with dielectric (52) fig. 4A [0024] of the die (46) fig. 4A [0024] bonded (pre-bonded) [0024, 0026] directly [0024] to dielectric (44) fig. 4A [0024] of an upper surface of the substrate (22) after pick and place processes [see fig. 4A, 0016, 0024, 0036] have completed and prior to annealing [0026] of the die (22) and substrate (20), wherein the die (46) is singulated (46 singulated relative to other 46’s) [see fig. 4B, 0024] and wherein the substrate (22) forms larger circuits (by connecting 26’s [0023] to 54’s [0026]); and
compacting the die (46) to the substrate (22) after the pick and place process [see fig. 4A, 0024, 0036] by applying a downward force (‘lightly pressing chips 46’ [0026]) across an entire surface of the upper surface of the substrate (22) (entire upper surface of 22 would experience pressing [0026]) to increase a bonded area (promote bonding / enhance bond contact area [0026]) between the die (46) and the upper surface of the substrate (22), wherein compacting (‘pressing’) [0026] the die (46) to the substrate (22) is completed prior to any annealing [0026] of the die (46) and the substrate (22).
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the die (46) and has a thickness of less than approximately 60 microns (thickness of die 46 not explicitly disclosed).
Pendse teaches a method [see title, 0057] wherein the die (230/120) fig. 2A [0050] has a thickness of less than approximately 60 microns (dies may have final thickness of 50 microns < 60 microns) [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen such that the die has a thickness of less than 60 microns because Pendse evidences that it is typical in the art and suitable for semiconductor dies to have thicknesses less than 60 microns [0050], as taught by Pendse.
Claims 2, 6-9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0375819A1) in view of Pendse (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0098729A1) (of record) and Seo (U.S. PG Pub No US2005/0215032A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Pendse teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 1. However, Chen does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
compacting [0026] the die (46) fig. 4A [0024] to the substrate (22) FIG. 4a [0024] using the downward force of a compacting roller that contacts the die (46) and the upper surface of the substrate (22) (roller not disclosed for compacting/’pressing’ [0026]).
Seo teaches a method [see figs. 3-4, 0043] further comprising:
compacting the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] to the substrate (comprising 3) fig. 5 [0071] using (in-part) the downward force (downward relative to roller 12a-b) of a compacting roller (12 a-b) fig. 5 [0057] that (mechanically) contacts the die (11) and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen such that the downward force applied to the die and substrate is facilitated by a compacting roller [0057] in order to enhance adhesion strength of the die-substrate bond [0059] without causing damage to the semiconductor layers [0059], as taught by Seo.
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 2. Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) also teaches wherein the compacting roller (12 a-b) fig. 5 [0057] has a plurality of segments (12a and 12b) that rotate about a same axis (in/out of page axis) independent of other segments of the plurality of segments (12a and 12b have separate pivots 13a and 13b capable of supporting independent rotation/rotary movement [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 2. Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) also teaches wherein the compacting roller (12 a-b) fig. 5 [0057] has segments (12a and 12b) [0057] that (can independently) rotate lengthwise around a same axis (in/out of page axis of 13a and 13b) in opposite rotational directions while rotating around a central axis while in contact with the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising top of 3) fig. 5 [0057].
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Pendse teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 1. However, Chen does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
compacting the die (46) fig. 4A [0024-0026] to the substrate (22) fig. 4A [0024-0026] using the downward force of a plurality of compacting rollers (compacting rollers not disclosed).
Seo teaches a method [see figs. 3-4, 0043] further comprising:
compacting the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] to the substrate (3 with 20) figs. 5 and 7 [0071] using the downward force of a plurality of compacting rollers (12a and 30 with 31) figs. 5-7 [0057, 0072-0074]) positioned above the die (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen such that the downward force applied to the die and substrate is facilitated by a compacting roller [0057] in order to enhance adhesion strength of the die-substrate bond [0059] without causing damage to the semiconductor layers [0059], as taught by Seo.
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 8. Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) also teaches wherein the plurality of compacting rollers (12 a-b and 30 with 31) figs. 5-7 [0057, 0072-0074] each rotate independently of other ones of the plurality of compacting rollers (12 a-b and 30 with 31) (12a and 12b have separate pivots 13a and 13b capable of supporting independent rotation/rotary movement [0058] – 30 has 31 that rotates around its own axis [0074]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Pendse teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 1. However, Chen does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
compacting the die (46) fig. 4A [0024, 0026] to the substrate (22) fig. 4A [0024, 0026] using the downward force of a compacting disk that rotates in a horizontal plane as the compacting disk contacts the die (46) and the upper surface of the substrate (22) (compacting disk not explicitly disclosed).
Seo teaches a method [see figs. 3-4, 0043] further comprising:
compacting the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] to the substrate (comprising 3) fig. 5 [0071] using the downward force of a compacting disk (12a or 12b) fig. 5 [0058] that rotates in a horizontal plane as the compacting disk (12a or 12b) contacts the die (11) and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising top of 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen such that the downward force applied to the die and substrate is facilitated by a compacting roller [0057] in order to enhance adhesion strength of the die-substrate bond [0059] without causing damage to the semiconductor layers [0059], as taught by Seo.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches a method of bonding [see title, 0026] a die (46) fig. 4A [0024] to a substrate (22) fig. 4A [0024], comprising:
cleaning [0021] the (surfaces of) die (46) [0024] and the substrate (22) [0021] (surfaces of 46 and 22 chemically-transformed by bonding [0024]),
placing the die (46) fig. 4A [0024] on an upper surface of the substrate (22) to bond (pre-bond) [0024, 0026] dielectric of the die (52) fig. 4A [0024] directly to dielectric (44) fig. 4A [0024] of the substrate (22) to complete a pick and place process [see fig. 4A, 0016, 0024, 0036], wherein the substrate (22) forms larger circuits (by connecting 26’s [0023] to 54’s [0026]);
compacting the die (46) to the substrate (22) after the pick and place process [see fig. 4A, 0024, 0036] by applying a downward force (‘lightly pressing chips 46’ [0026]) of at least one compacting roller across an entire surface of the upper surface of the substrate (entire upper surface of 22 would experience pressing [0026]) to increase a bonded area (promote bonding / enhance bond contact area [0026]) between the die (46) and the upper surface of the substrate (22), wherein compacting (‘pressing’) [0026] the die (46) to the substrate (22) is completed prior to any annealing [0026] of the die (46) and the substrate (22); and
annealing (after pre-bonding [0026]) the die (46) and the substrate (22).
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the die (46) has a thickness of less than approximately 60 microns,
compacting the die (46) to the substrate (22) by applying a downward force (‘lightly pressing chips 46’ [0026]) of at least one compacting roller (roller not disclosed).
Pendse teaches a method [see title, 0057] wherein the die (230/120) fig. 2A [0050] has a thickness of less than approximately 60 microns (dies may have final thickness of 50 microns < 60 microns) [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen such that the die has a thickness of less than 60 microns because Pendse evidences that it is typical in the art and suitable for semiconductor dies to have thicknesses less than 60 microns [0050], as taught by Pendse.
However, Chen in view of Pendse does not explicitly disclose compacting the die (46) to the substrate (22) by applying a downward force (‘lightly pressing chips 46’ [0026]) of at least one compacting roller (roller not disclosed).
Seo teaches a method [see figs. 3-4, 0043] further comprising:
compacting the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] to the substrate (comprising 3) fig. 5 [0071] by applying (in-part) a downward force (downward relative to roller 12a-b) of at least one compacting roller (12 a-b) fig. 5 [0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen in view of Pendse such that the downward force applied to the die and substrate is facilitated by a compacting roller [0057] in order to enhance adhesion strength of the die-substrate bond [0059] without causing damage to the semiconductor layers [0059], as taught by Seo.
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 17. Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) also teaches further comprising:
rolling the at least one compacting roller (12 a-b) fig 5. [0057] (using “rotary movement) [0057-0059] across the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising 3 of 3 with 20) figs. 5-7 [0071];
rotating the at least one compacting roller (12a-b) less than 360 degrees (roller is rotated to some degree – which must be less than 360 degrees at some point in the process) [0057-0059]; and
rolling (using “rotary movement”) [0057-0059] the at least one compacting roller (12a-b) across the die (11 cut from 10) and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising 3) (at speed of 1-5 m/min) [0059].
Claims 3-5, 10, 12, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0375819A1) modified by Pendse (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0098729A1) (of record) and Seo (U.S. PG Pub No US2005/0215032A1) (of record), as applied in claims 2, 8, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Sakaguchi (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0240504A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 2. Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) also teaches the compacting roller (12 a-b) fig 5. [0057] has a surface layer that engages with the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising 3 of 3 with 20) figs. 5-7 [0071].
However, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) does not teach wherein the compacting roller (12 a-b) has a soft surface layer, the soft surface layer has a Shore 00 hardness of greater than approximately 30 and less than approximately 80 (softness/hardness of roller not specified).
Sakaguchi teaches a method [0064] wherein the compacting roller (41) fig. 9 [0081] has a soft surface layer (elastic surface) [0081], the soft surface layer has a Shore 00 hardness of greater than approximately 30 and less than approximately 80 (30-90 [0081] which encompasses claimed range and values such as 55 [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen in view of Pendse and Seo such that the pressing roller is formed with a Shore Hardness of approximately 30-80/90 [0081] in order to optimize roller durability [0081] and pressing pressure power [0081], as taught by Sakaguchi.
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Pendse, Seo, and Sakaguchi teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 3. Chen in view of Pendse, Seo, and Sakaguchi (with reference to Sakaguchi) also teaches further comprising:
moving the (upper circumference of) substrate (30 with 22) fig. 11 [0082] in a horizontal direction under the compacting roller (comprising 41, 42) fig. 11 [0082-0086], wherein the (center of) compacting roller (comprising 41, 42) is stationary in the horizontal direction and (its circumference) rotates [0082] when in contact with the die (cut from 30) and the upper surface (comprising top of 22) of the substrate (22 with 30).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Pendse, Seo, and Sakaguchi teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 3. Chen in view of Pendse, Seo, and Sakaguchi (with reference to Sakaguchi) further comprising:
moving the (circumference of the) compacting roller (41) fig. 9 [0077-0079] in a horizontal direction over the upper surface of the substrate (30 with 21, 22) fig. 9 [0077-0079] while the substrate (30 with 21, 22) is stationary, wherein the compacting roller rotates [0080] when in contact with the die (cut from 30) and upper surface of the substrate (comprising top of 22).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 8. However, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of compacting rollers (12 a-b and 30 with 31) figs. 5-7 [0057, 0072-0074]) applies a different amount of downward force on the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] and the upper surface of the substrate (3 with 20) figs. 5 and 7 [0071].
Sakaguchi teaches a method [0064] wherein each of the plurality of compacting rollers (a 41 and a 42) fig. 11 [0081, 0086] applies a different amount of downward force (50-300 kPa [0081] vs 10-150 kPa [0086]) on the die (cut from 30) fig. 11 [0082] and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising top of 22) fig. 11 [0082].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen in view of Pendse and Seo such that the rollers apply the pressures prescribed by Sakaguchi [0081, 0086] in order to optimize roller durability [0081] and pressing pressure power [0081], as taught by Sakaguchi.
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 11. However, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) does not explicitly disclose wherein the compacting disk (12a or 12b) has undulations on a lower surface (lower sidewall relative to uppermost surface of 41) fig. 9 [0080] of the compacting disk that interfaces with the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] (cut from 30) fig. 9 [0080] and upper surface of the substrate (3 with 20) figs. 5 and 7 [0071].
Sakaguchi teaches a method [0064] wherein the compacting disk (41) fig. 9 [0080] has undulations (curved groove(s)) [0080] on a lower surface (lower sidewall relative to uppermost surface of 41) fig. 9 [0080] of the compacting disk (41) fig. 9 [0080] that interfaces with the die (cut from 30) fig. 9 [0080] and upper surface of the substrate (comprising top of 22) fig. 9 [0080].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen in view of Pendse and Seo such that the compacting disk is formed with curved grooves [0080] in order to enhance the contact surface of the compacting disk [0080], as taught by Sakaguchi.
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo teaches the method [see title, 0026] of claim 17. Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) also teaches wherein the compacting roller (12 a-b) fig 5. [0057] has a surface layer that engages with the die (11 cut from 10) fig. 5 [0063] and the upper surface of the substrate (comprising 3 of 3 with 20) figs. 5-7 [0071].
However, Chen in view of Pendse and Seo (with reference to Seo) does not teach wherein the compacting roller (12 a-b) has a soft surface layer, the soft surface layer has a Shore 00 hardness of greater than approximately 30 and less than approximately 80 (softness/hardness of roller not specified).
Sakaguchi teaches a method [0064] wherein the compacting roller (41) fig. 9 [0081] has a soft surface layer (elastic surface) [0081], the soft surface layer has a Shore 00 hardness of greater than approximately 30 and less than approximately 80 (30-90 [0081] which encompasses claimed range and values such as 55 [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chen in view of Pendse and Seo such that the pressing roller is formed with a Shore Hardness of approximately 30-80/90 [0081] in order to optimize roller durability [0081] and pressing pressure power [0081], as taught by Sakaguchi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 17-19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form (of record) are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they apply at least some of the claimed method steps to die-substrate structures.
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 SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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 on 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 04/24/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights