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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. See claim 9 which includes reference characters 23 and 200.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “multiple support structures are formed protruding from the top surface” in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, Applicant’s figures do not appear to show the support structures (13) protruding from surface (11) and this limitation appears to be discussed in the specification as an alternative embodiment (see Page 9, Lines 9-10). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasumura US 6582223 (hereinafter Yasumura).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, Yasumura discloses: A die suction assistance device (Fig. 1), comprising: a platform (3, Fig. 1), having an air cell (interior of 3, Fig. 1); wherein at least one vacuum hole is formed in the platform (see Fig. 1, hole where 100 connects to); wherein the at least one vacuum hole is in fluid communication with the air cell (see Fig. 1); and multiple support structures (pyramid undulations as shown in Fig. 1 and 2(a-1, b-1) and Col. 5, Lines 17-22), mounted in the platform; wherein multiple air ducts are formed among the support structures (see Fig. 2(a-1) and (b-1), the porous material in 2(a-1) or 6 in 2(b-1)), and the multiple air ducts are in fluid communication with the air cell (see Fig. 1-2); wherein the die suction assistance device is provided to a wafer (see Fig. 1, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use in the same manner as 1’s); the wafer is diced into multiple dies (see Fig. 1, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use in the same manner as 1), and a tape is taped on a bottom side of the wafer (see Fig. 1, in the same manner as 2); wherein the at least one vacuum hole is connected to an external vacuum device for vacuuming air out of the air cell (see 100, Fig. 1); wherein the wafer is air-tightly mounted on the platform (see Fig. 1, using 100), and the support structures are configured to push against the tape; wherein when the external vacuum device vacuums air out of the air cell, the tape and the dies are partially separated (see Fig. 1, in the same manner as shown).
Re. Cl. 5, Yasumura discloses: each of the dies is supported by at least two of the support structures (see Fig. 1, when supported in the center of 3c, the dies would be supported by at least two of the pyramids).
Re. Cl. 6, Yasumura discloses: A die suction assistance device (Fig. 1), comprising: a platform (3, Fig. 1), having an air cell (interior of 3, Fig. 1); wherein at least one vacuum hole is formed in the platform (see Fig. 1, hole where 100 attaches to 3); wherein the at least one vacuum hole is in fluid communication with the air cell (see Fig. 1); a loading plate (3c, Fig. 1), mounted within the air cell of the platform (see Fig. 1, as being within 3b); wherein multiple support structures are formed on the loading plate (pyramid undulations as shown in Fig. 1 and 2(a-1, b-1) and Col. 5, Lines 17-22), multiple air ducts are formed among the support structures (see Fig. 2(a-1) and (b-1), the porous material in 2(a-1) or 6 in 2(b-1)), and the multiple air ducts are in fluid communication with the air cell (see Fig. 1-2); wherein the die suction assistance device is provided to a wafer (see Fig. 1, in the same manner as shown with 1); the wafer is diced into multiple dies (see Fig. 1, the device is capable of being used in the claimed intended use as shown with multiple 1’s), and a tape is taped on a bottom side of the wafer (see Fig. 1, in the same manner as shown with 2); wherein the at least one vacuum hole is connected to an external vacuum device for vacuuming air out of the air cell (see Fig. 1, connected to 100); wherein the wafer is air-tightly mounted on the platform and is supported by the loading plate (see Fig. 1, in the same manner shown with 1, 2), and the support structures are configured to push against the tape (see Fig. 1); wherein when the external vacuum device vacuums air out of the air cell, the tape and the dies are partially separated (see Fig. 1).
Re. Cl. 7, Yasumura discloses: the loading plate comprises a board (see 3c, Fig. 1), and multiple grooves are formed crossing in different directions on a surface of the board; each of the grooves extends to side surfaces of the board; each of the support structures is formed by a part of the board that is surrounded by the adjacent grooves (see annotated figure 2(b-1)).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segawa US 2010/0144120 (hereinafter Segawa).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, Segawa discloses: A die suction assistance device (Fig. 8), comprising: a platform (3, 51, Fig. 8), having an air cell (see Fig. 8, between 35 and the nearest 36s); wherein at least one vacuum hole is formed in the platform (50, 52, Fig. 8); wherein the at least one vacuum hole is in fluid communication with the air cell (see Fig. 8); and multiple support structures (36s, Fig. 8), mounted in the platform (see Fig. 8); wherein multiple air ducts are formed among the support structures (see Fig. 8, 38, discussed as multiple in Paragraph 0064), and the multiple air ducts are in fluid communication with the air cell (see Fig. 8); wherein the die suction assistance device is provided to a wafer (see Fig. 8, in the same manner as 22,24, 13) the wafer is diced into multiple dies (see Fig. 8, in the same manner as 13s), and a tape is taped on a bottom side of the wafer (see Fig. 8, in the same manner as 22); wherein the at least one vacuum hole is connected to an external vacuum device for vacuuming air out of the air cell (see 4 and 56, Fig. 8); wherein the wafer is air-tightly mounted on the platform (see Fig. 8), and the support structures are configured to push against the tape (see Fig. 3c); wherein when the external vacuum device vacuums air out of the air cell, the tape and the dies are partially separated (see Fig. 3c, in the same manner as shown).
Re. Cl. 2, Segawa discloses: the platform has a top surface (see Fig. 8, top surface of 35), and an opening is formed on the top surface (see Fig. 2, within 35); the air cell is formed extending inwards from the opening (see Fig. 2, between 35 and 36s); multiple support structures are mounted vertically and aligned with each other on a bottom of the air cell (see Fig. 2 and 8).
Re. Cl. 3, Segawa discloses: each of the support structures is shaped as a pin (see Fig. 2 and 8).
Re. Cl. 4, Segawa discloses: the platform has a top surface (see annotated figure 8), and multiple support structures are formed protruding from the top surface (see annotated figure 8); multiple grooves are formed between all of the adjacent support structures (see Fig. 8, between 36s); the air ducts are in fluid communication with the air cell located below the top surface (see Fig. 38 and Paragraph 0064).
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumura.
Re. Cl. 8, Yasumura discloses that the grooves are formed crossing and X axis and a Y axis (see annotated figure 2(b-1) above), and the grooves are carved by laser beams (In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation does not patentably distinguish over Yasamura. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e the board with grooves, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. laser cutting. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). However, Yasumura does not specify that the board is made out of metal. 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 board of Yasumura to be metallic with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Re. Cls. 9-10, Yasumura discloses that the each of the grooves has a width and depth (see Fig. 2(b-1)) and that the device is capable of being used with a tape having a thickness (see Figs. 1 and 2(b-1)). Yasumura further discloses that the support structures have a width and that the device is capable of being used with dies having a length or a width (see Fig. 2(b-1)). Yasumura further discloses that the undulations can be in any form so long as they can support the chip (see Col. 5, Lines 17-22), thus indicating that the dimensions of the chip are a result effective variable. However, Yasumura does not disclose that the claimed ratio between the width of the grooves and thickness of the tape, the depth of the grooves and the thickness of the tape, and the width of the support structures and the length or width of the dies. 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 undulations of Yasumura so that the ratios cited above are satisfied since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yasumura would not operate differently with the claimed diameter since the changes in ratio would still result in sufficient supporting of the chips. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratios are examples of configurations of the support structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Foree US 2003/0168174, Itamoto US 4597569, Althouse US 4778326, and Ozono US 7632374 disclose other known vacuum supporting structures presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632