Attorney Docket Number: POL-13783
Filing Date: 9/14/2022
Foreign Priority Date: 9/22/2021 (JP2021-153695)
Inventors: Lee et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 1/28/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 a 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.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 1/28/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 10/28/2025, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 13-14, and added claims 15-17. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the respective claim rejections
under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 103 as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 12/22/2025. Accordingly, the claim rejections of 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are considered but are not persuasive: Tamaki explicitly discloses the roughened surface effectively dissipates heat more efficiently, which is expanded upon in the claim rejection below. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 13-17. New grounds of rejections are presented below, however, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 14-15 and 17 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…thin film of flux forming step…”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…thin film of flux forming step…” will be construed as reciting “…flix film forming step…”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “…thin film of flux forming step…”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…thin film of flux forming step…” will be construed as reciting “…flux film forming step…”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “…the dipping device…”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…the dipping device…” will be construed as reciting “…the semiconductor device…”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…thin film of flux forming step…”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…flux film forming step…” will be construed as reciting “…flux film forming step…”.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20200095685 A1) in view of Tamaki (US 20230307595 A1) further in view of Yoshihide (JP 2015177038 A) and Takatoshi (JP 3591344 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Han (see, e.g., fig. 7) shows most aspects of the invention including a manufacturing method comprising:
A flux film forming step of supplying flux to a plate (see, e.g., paragraph 150 “After spraying the flux as a thin film on the surface of the plated test piece…”);
Han (see, e.g., fig. 7), however, fails to show the plate having a rough surface with a nano-level arithmetically average roughness on rough surface that provides wettability of the rough surface to the flux, while it also fails to show wherein the thin film of flux is transferred to bumps of a die, and a flux transferring step of picking up the die and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux.
Tamaki (see, e.g., fig. 9A), in a similar device to Han, teaches a plate (e.g., first plate 2) having a rough surface (e.g., rough second surface 2a) with a nano-level arithmetically average roughness (see, e.g., paragraph 103 “the second surface 3a may have an arithmetic mean roughness of about, but not limited to, 50 to 1000 nm or about 100 to 1000 nm. The same applies to the first plate 2 including the rough first surface 2a”) on the rough surface (e.g., rough second surface 2a).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the rough surface configuration of Tamaki onto the plate of Han, in order to enhance the thermal performance during the die bonding process due to the increased surface area during heat transfer.
Han in view of Tamaki, however, fails to teach the thin film of flux is transferred to bumps of a die, and a flux transferring step of picking up the die and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux.
Yoshihide (see, e.g., background art text), in a similar device to Han in view of Tamaki, teaches the thin film of flux is transferred to bumps of a die (see, e.g., background-art “In the bonding process, there is a dipping process in which flux is applied to the bump surface having the bumps of the die”) and a flux transferring step of picking up the die (see, e.g., background-art “There is a boarding process in which a bumped die is picked up from a wafer, the die is inverted, flux is applied to the bump…”) and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux (see, e.g., background art “the bump surface of the die is immersed in a concave cavity in which flux is stored”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the thin film of flux transfer steps of Yoshihide within the process of Han in view of Tamaki, in order to achieve the expected result of applying the flux onto the die bump before soldering, and picking up the die and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux is well-understood in the art as a known methodology, as taught by Yoshihide.
Han in view of Tamaki further in view of Yoshihide, however, fails to teach providing wettability of the rough surface to the flux.
Takatoshi (see, e.g., fig. 1D), in a similar device to Han in view of Tamaki further in view of Yoshihide, teaches providing wettability (see, e.g., paragraphs 10 or 11) of a surface (e.g., surface of substrate 1) to flux (e.g., flux 9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the wettability of Takatoshi within the method of Han in view of Tamaki further in view of Yoshihide, in order to achieve the expected result of enhancing the flux properties within the device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Tamaki further in view of Yoshihide, Takatoshi, and Ikeda (US 20150345930 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Han in view of Tamaki further in view of Yoshihide and Takatoshi fails to teach a film thickness measurement step for measuring a thickness of the thin film of flux after the thin film of flux forming step.
Ikeda (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Han in view of Tamaki further in view of Yoshihide, teaches a film thickness measuring step for measuring a thickness (see, e.g., paragraph 42 “…controlling the film thickness measuring unit 50 and the measurement processing portion 52 to measure the transferred film thickness of the flux 25…”) of the thin film of flux (e.g., coating film 25a of the flux 25) after the flux film forming step (e.g., note that the coating film 25a of the flux 25 was formed in fig. 2, see paragraph 31).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the film thickness measuring step of Ikeda within the method of Han in view of Tamaki further in view of Yoshihide, in order to achieve the expected result of ensuring the proper quantity of thin film of flux is deposited onto the bumps of the die.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Hideaki (JP 2011108948 A) further in view of Yoshihide.
Regarding claim 13, Han (see, e.g., fig. 7) shows most aspects of the invention including a manufacturing method comprising:
A flux film forming step of supplying flux to a plate (see, e.g., paragraph 150 “After spraying the flux as a thin film on the surface of the plated test piece…”);
Han (see, e.g., fig. 7), however, fails to show the plate having a rough surface with a nano-level arithmetically average roughness on rough surface that provides wettability of the rough surface to the flux, while it also fails to show wherein the thin film of flux is transferred to bumps of a die, and a flux transferring step of picking up the die and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux.
Hideaki (see, e.g., fig. 4A), in a similar device to Han, teaches a rough surface (e.g., roughened surface A) that provides wettability (see, e.g., paragraph text “By setting the surface….to the roughed surface A, the wettability of the flux is improved and the flux can be adhered stably…”) to flux (e.g., flux referenced in paragraph text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the roughened surface and wettability configuration of Hideaki within the method of Han, in order to improve the adhesion of the flux within the device, as taught by Hideaki.
Han in view of Hideaki fails to explicitly teach the rough surface have a nano-level arithmetically average roughness.
However, ranges of thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the applicant has not established criticality (see next paragraph below), it would have been obvious to utilize a nano-level size configuration of the roughness within Han in view of Hideaki, in order to provide a distinctly rough surface for flux adhesion while simultaneously limiting the cost of fabrication by minimizing the amount of plasma required for surface treatment (see paragraph text of Hideaki).
CRITICALITY: The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the
claimed length ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is
said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a
claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919
F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Han in view of Hideaki, however, fails to teach the thin film of flux is transferred to bumps of a die, and a flux transferring step of picking up the die and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux.
Yoshihide (see, e.g., background art text), in a similar device to Han in view of Hideaki, teaches the thin film of flux is transferred to bumps of a die (see, e.g., background-art “In the bonding process, there is a dipping process in which flux is applied to the bump surface having the bumps of the die”) and a flux transferring step of picking up the die (see, e.g., background-art “There is a boarding process in which a bumped die is picked up from a wafer, the die is inverted, flux is applied to the bump…”) and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux (see, e.g., background art “the bump surface of the die is immersed in a concave cavity in which flux is stored”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the thin film of flux transfer steps of Yoshihide within the process of Han in view of Hideaki, in order to achieve the expected result of applying the flux onto the die bump before soldering, and picking up the die and immersing the bumps in the thin film of the flux is well-understood in the art as a known methodology, as taught by Yoshihide.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Hideaki further in view of Yoshihide and Ikeda (US 20150345930 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Han in view of Hideaki further in view of Yoshihide fails to teach a film thickness measurement step for measuring a thickness of the thin film of flux after the thin film of flux forming step.
Ikeda (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Han in view of Hideaki further in view of Yoshihide, teaches a film thickness measuring step for measuring a thickness (see, e.g., paragraph 42 “…controlling the film thickness measuring unit 50 and the measurement processing portion 52 to measure the transferred film thickness of the flux 25…”) of the thin film of flux (e.g., coating film 25a of the flux 25) after the flux film forming step (e.g., note that the coating film 25a of the flux 25 was formed in fig. 2, see paragraph 31).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the film thickness measuring step of Ikeda within the method of Han in view of Hideaki further in view of Yoshihide, in order to achieve the expected result of ensuring the proper quantity of thin film of flux is deposited onto the bumps of the die.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814