ETAILED 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended; and claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory (WO 2020/228940 A1, however, its equivalent US Pg. Pub. 2022/0230895 A1 is used for the rejection below, hereinafter “Gregory”) in view of Chiu et al. (US 2023/0032570 A1, hereinafter “Chiu”).
In regards to claim 1, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) a method of locating a semiconductor die on a substrate, comprising the steps of:
picking up and carrying the die with a die-holding surface of a bonding tool (See, Fig. 3c) having a protrusion (created by moving Pin 70, See, for example, Fig. 3d),
the protrusion being resiliently mounted in the bonding tool and configured to be resiliently movable between a retracted position within the die-holding surface (See, for example, Fig. 3a, retracted position) and an extended position protruding from the die-holding surface (See, for example, Fig. 3d),
wherein the protrusion is located in the extended position for bending the die when the bonding tool is carrying the die (See, for example, figs. 3d and 3e; “Simultaneously to, or preferably after the first and second gas pressure have been applied, the first support element 68 and the second support element 70 are moved vertically to protrude the respective holding surface…”, Par [0028]); and
moving the bonding tool to flatten the die against the substrate while the substrate urges the protrusion to retract from the extended position towards the retracted position (See, for example, Figs. 3f and 3g, and also Pars [0242], [0244], [0245]).
Gregory is silent about the protrusion being resiliently mounted within the bonding tool through/connected to a resilient mechanism that applies an urging force to the protrusion. The resilient mechanism being configured to elastically bend from unloaded configuration inwards into the cavity. When the die is flattened against the substrate, the protrusion is designed to retract upon receiving sufficient force from the substrate that exceeds the urging force provided by the resilient mechanism.
However, Chiu while disclosing a bonding tool teaches (See, for example, Fig. 2) the protrusion being resiliently mounted within the bonding tool through/connected to a resilient mechanism that applies an urging force to the protrusion. The resilient mechanism being configured to elastically bend from unloaded configuration inwards into the cavity. (See, for example, Figs. 6A-7C). When the die is flattened against the substrate, the protrusion is designed to retract upon receiving sufficient force from the substrate that exceeds the urging force provided by the resilient mechanism (See, for example, Figs. 2 and Figs. 3A-3F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gregory by Chiu because in addition to the reduction of manufacturing costs by reducing the number of processing steps, the deflection or deformation of the semiconductor die allows an initial contact with a much less contact area between the center area of the semiconductor die and the semiconductor wafer, which can ensure a more uniform bonding pressure distribution on the semiconductor die. Hence, voids and/or gas pockets may be avoided at the interface between the bonding surfaces of the semiconductor die and the semiconductor wafer, and the performance of bonding may be elevated.
Gregory as modified by the embodiment of Chiu that is depicted, for example, in Fig. 3 is silent about
the protrusion being resiliently mounted in the bonding tool via a resilient mechanism located adjacent to a cavity formed inside the bonding tool, the protrusion and resilient mechanism being integrally formed as a unitary compliant structure configured to elastically bend from an unloaded configuration inwards into the cavity in response to a compressive force applied to the protrusion and to return to an unloaded configuration upon removal of the compressive force, such that the protrusion [[and ]]is configured to be resiliently movable between a retracted position within the die-holding surface and an extended position protruding from the die-holding surface.
However, Chiu’s another embodiment (See, for example, Figs. 6 and 7) discloses the protrusion (part of 610 passed surface 600a) being resiliently mounted in the bonding tool (600) via a resilient mechanism located adjacent to a cavity (608) formed inside the bonding tool (600), the protrusion and resilient mechanism being integrally formed (610, See for example, Fig. 6C) as a unitary compliant structure configured to elastically bend (See, Par [0053]) from an unloaded configuration (See, for example, Fig. 6C) inwards (see, for example, Figs. 7B and 7C) into the cavity (608) in response to a compressive force applied to the protrusion and to return to an unloaded configuration upon removal of the compressive force (See, for example, Fig. 7D), such that the protrusion is configured to be resiliently movable between a retracted position within the die-holding surface and an extended position protruding from the die-holding surface (See, for example, Par [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the unitary compliant structure of Chiu over the discreet structure of the bending member of Chiu because having the unitary bending member results in a smaller variation of the sensing current which indicates the deflection or deformation of the semiconductor die allows an initial contact with a much less contact area between the center area of the semiconductor die and the substrate, which can ensure a more uniform pressure distribution on the semiconductor die.
In regards to claim 15, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) a bonding tool for locating a semiconductor die on a substrate, comprising:
a die-holding surface for picking up and carrying the die (See, for example, Fig. 3c),
the die-holding surface having a protrusion that is resiliently mounted in the bonding tool and configured to be resiliently movable between a retracted position (See, for example, Fig. 3a, retracted position) within the die-holding surface and an extended position protruding from the die-holding surface (See, for example, Fig. 3d),
wherein the protrusion is located in the extended position for bending the die when the bonding tool is carrying the die (See, for example, Figs. 3d and 3e; “Simultaneously to, or preferably after the first and second gas pressure have been applied, the first support element 68 and the second support element 70 are moved vertically to protrude the respective holding surface…”, Par [0028])); and
an actuation mechanism configured to move the bonding tool to flatten the die against the substrate while the substrate urges the protrusion to retract from the extended position towards the retracted position (See, for example, Figs. 3f and 3g, and also Pars [0242], [0244], [0245]).
However, Chiu while disclosing a bonding tool teaches (See, for example, Fig. 2) the protrusion being resiliently mounted within the bonding tool through a resilient mechanism that applies an urging force to the protrusion. When the die is flattened against the substrate, the protrusion is designed to retract upon receiving sufficient force from the substrate that exceeds the urging force provided by the resilient mechanism (See, for example, Figs. 2 and Figs. 3A-3F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gregory by Chiu because in addition to the reduction of manufacturing costs by reducing the number of processing steps, the deflection or deformation of the semiconductor die allows an initial contact with a much less contact area between the center area of the semiconductor die and the semiconductor wafer, which can ensure a more uniform bonding pressure distribution on the semiconductor die. Hence, voids and/or gas pockets may be avoided at the interface between the bonding surfaces of the semiconductor die and the semiconductor wafer, and the performance of bonding may be elevated.
Gregory as modified by the embodiment of Chiu that is depicted, for example, Fig. 3 is silent about
the protrusion being resiliently mounted in the bonding tool via a resilient mechanism located adjacent to a cavity formed inside the bonding tool, the protrusion and resilient mechanism being integrally formed as a unitary compliant structure configured to elastically bend from an unloaded configuration inwards into the cavity in response to a compressive force applied to the protrusion and to return to an unloaded configuration upon removal of the compressive force, such that the protrusion [[and ]]is configured to be resiliently movable between a retracted position within the die-holding surface and an extended position protruding from the die-holding surface.
However, Chiu’s another embodiment (See, for example, Figs. 6 and 7) discloses the protrusion (part of 610 passed surface 600a) being resiliently mounted in the bonding tool (600) via a resilient mechanism located adjacent to a cavity (608) formed inside the bonding tool (600), the protrusion and resilient mechanism being integrally formed (610, See for example, Fig. 6C) as a unitary compliant structure configured to elastically bend (See, Par [0053]) from an unloaded configuration (See, for example, Fig. 6C) inwards (see, for example, Figs. 7B and 7C) into the cavity (608) in response to a compressive force applied to the protrusion and to return to an unloaded configuration upon removal of the compressive force (See, for example, Fig. 7D), such that the protrusion is configured to be resiliently movable between a retracted position within the die-holding surface and an extended position protruding from the die-holding surface (See, for example, Par [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the unitary compliant structure of Chiu over the discreet structure of the bending member of Chiu because having the unitary bending member results in a smaller variation of the sensing current which indicates the deflection or deformation of the semiconductor die allows an initial contact with a much less contact area between the center area of the semiconductor die and the substrate, which can ensure a more uniform pressure distribution on the semiconductor die.
In regards to claim 2, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) locating the protrusion in the extended position bends the die from a planar form to a convex form (See, for example, Figs. 3d and 3e).
In regards to claim 3, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) the protrusion is positioned to bend the die into the convex form by displacing a central region of the die relative to a periphery of the die (See, for example, Figs. 3d and 3e).
In regards to claim 4, Gregory as modified above discloses the resilient mechanism comprises a biasing mechanism (110b, See Fig. 1D, Chiu) located within the die-holing surface (See, for example, Par [0021], Chiu) to urge the protrusion (110a, See for example, Fig. 1d, Chiu) toward the extended position (See, for example, Figs. 1D, 3A, 3E, and 3F).
In regards to claim 5, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) moving the bonding tool to flatten the die against the substrate comprises moving the bonding tool towards the substrate to initially contact a central region of the die against the substrate (See, for example, Figs. 3d-3g and Pars [0242], [0244], [0245]).
In regards to claim 6, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) moving the bonding tool to flatten the die against the substrate overcomes the biasing mechanism to retract the protrusion to the retracted position (See, for example, Figs. 3f and 3g) to allow contact between the die and the substrate to propagate from a region corresponding to a position of the protrusion towards a periphery of the die (See, for example, Figs. 3e and 3f).
In regards to claim 7, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) continuing to move the bonding tool to fully retract the protrusion within the die-holding surface (See, for example, Figs. 3f and 3g, and also, see Par [0244]).
In regards to claim 8, Gregory discloses (See, for example Fig. 3a) that the die-holding surface (46/48) is planar.
In regards to claim 9, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) fully retracting the protrusion within the die-holding surface allows the die to return to the planar form (See, for example, Figs. 3f and 3g).
In regards to claim 10, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) continuing to move the bonding tool flattens the die against the substrate (“As the chucks move … “ , Par [0242]; “….the movement of the chucks ….continues until the substrates 12, 14 are nearly in full contact with one another. “, Par [0245]).
In regards to claim 11, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) that carrying the die comprises holding a periphery of the die against the die-holding surface to facilitate bending of the die into the convex form by the protrusion (See, for example, Figs. 3d and 3e).
In regards to claim 12, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) that carrying the die comprises generating a vacuum force to hold a periphery of the die against the die-holding surface (See, “…holding means 54 …. “, See Par [0147]; and “…the holding means 54 are vacuum means ….”, See Par [0148]; See also Par [0247]).
In regards to claim 13, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) that the vacuum force holding the periphery of the die is configured not to overcome the biasing mechanism when the protrusion is in the extended position (See, for example, Figs. 3d and 3e).
In regards to claim 14, Gregory discloses (See, for example, Figs. 3c-3g) ceasing to hold the periphery of the die against the die-holding surface to enable the die to remain in the planar form following contact between the die and the substrate to allow contact between the die and the substrate to propagate from a region corresponding to a position of the protrusion towards the periphery of the die (“As the chucks move, also the bonding wave propagates radially outwards … “ , Par [0242]; “….the movement of the chucks ….continues until the substrates 12, 14 are nearly in full contact with one another. The movement of the chucks 24, 26 is then stopped, but the bonding wave keeps propagating until the substrates 12, 14 are fully bonded.”, Par [0245]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the following arguments:
“Support for the protrusion being connected to the resilient mechanism can be found in the
specification, page 12, line 5.
Support for the resilient mechanism being bent inwards into the cavity in response to a
compressing force can be found in the specification, page 12, lines 7-10.
While it was recognized that Gregory is silent about: (a) the protrusion being resiliently
mounted within the bonding tool through a resilient mechanism, and (b) the protrusion and the
resilient mechanism being integrally formed as a unitary compliant structure configured to
elastically bend inwards into a cavity in response to a compressing force, it was alleged that Chiu
discloses features (a) and (b) which are missing from Gregory.
It was alleged that feature (b) can be found in FIGs. 6A-6C and FIGs. 7A-7C of Chiu,
which relate to a compressible member (610) in the form of a single columnar structure
including an elastic tape. See paragraph [0053] of Chiu. However, structurally, the Applicant
respectfully disagrees that Chiu discloses discrete components in the form of a protrusion and a
resilient mechanism to which the protrusion is connected. On the contrary, the entire columnar
structure of the member (610) is squeezed (FIG. 7C) when a compressive force acts on it and
expands (FIG. 7A) when the force is removed. See FIGs. 7A and 7C reproduced below.
As such, a spacing (gap) S1 (FIG. 7A) has to be introduced in the trench (608) in order to
accommodate the member (610) in its compressed state. See paragraph [0054] and Figs. 7A-7C
of Chiu. Chiu does not disclose one mechanism outside of trench (608) (the part of the member
(610) that is passed surface (600a) in FIG. 7A) and a separate resilient mechanism that is inside
the trench (608), since even the part of the member (610) outside the trench (608) in the
uncompressed state would expand when stressed/compressed as seen in FIG. 7C.
Moreover, since the columnar structure is squeezed and expands laterally while it is
inside the trench (608) (FIGs. 7B, 7C), Chiu does not disclose that the resilient mechanism is
"configured to elastically bend inwards into the cavity in response to a compressive force
applied to the protrusion". In fact, there is no cavity behind the member (610) that could permit
the member (610) to bend "inwards into". Technically, the lateral expansion of the member
(610) causes additional lateral stress onto the die and may cause inadvertent damage by tending
to flatten only that part of the die which is being compressed in a localized manner. The ability
of the resilient mechanism to bend inwards into an adjacent cavity (as claimed) in response to a
compressing force (as claimed) improves reliability and avoids the imposition of resultant lateral
stress acting on the die. Hence, the approach disclosed in FIGs. 7A-7C of Chiu is less reliable in
use and may cause defects as compared with the design of the claimed invention.
Similarly, in addition to the distinction that a protrusion and a resilient mechanism are not
integrally formed in the embodiment shown in FIGs. 3A-3E of Chiu, the spring (110b) is not
"located adjacent to a cavity formed inside the bonding tool" (as claimed in claims 1 and 15).
The spring (110b) is fully contained inside a closed trench (108) and upon receiving a
compressing force is merely elastically compressed within the trench (108) itself. See theillustration in Fig. 3E (reproduced below) of Chiu. There is no other cavity that the spring
(110b) can extend into.
Thus, Chiu does not disclose a resilient mechanism "located adjacent to a cavity formed
inside the bonding tool", wherein the resilient mechanism is configured to bend inwardly into the
cavity. As acknowledged, Gregory is likewise silent with respect to these features.”
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because:
The arguments attack Chiu reference individually and fails to address the combination
The rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gregory in view of Chiu. Applicant’s arguments are directed exclusively to what Chiu, standing alone, allegedly fails to show.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).Specifically, “a cavity formed inside the bonding tool” is supplied by Gregory. Gregory teaches an opening 58 that extends through the entire thickness of the respective chuck 24, 26, with the support element 68, 70 mounted movably in the opening 58 by means of a bearing 76, and with the supply channel 62 extending from the opening 58 between the pressure port 50, 52 and the bearing 76 (See, for example, Fig. 1 and 3a-3g). Gregory therefore provides substantial interior volume within the tool body, adjacent to and behind the movable element, into which a resilient mounting may deform. Chiu is relied upon for the resilient/compliant mounting (See, Figs. 2 and 3A-3F); Gregory supplies the interior cavity in which it is housed.
Applicant’s construction of “integrally formed as a unitary compliant structure” is internally inconsistent
Applicant argues that Chiu Figs. 6A-7C fails because “the entire columnar structure of the member (610) is squeezed… and expands… when the force is removed,” and that Chiu accordingly does not disclose “discrete components in the form of protrusion and a resilient mechanism to which h the protrusion is connected.”
The argument is contrary to the claim language. The claim recites that the protrusion and the resilient mechanism are “integrally formed as a unitary compliant structure.” Applicant cannot demand that the claim be read as requiring discrete, connected components in order to distinguish Chiu, while simultaneously reciting an integrally formed, unitary structure. Chiu’s bending member 610, a single columnar elastic-tape structure (See, Par [0053]) having a protruding portion of height M3 above first surface 600a and a body portion residing in trench 608 (See, for example, Figs. 6A-6C), is precisely the unitary compliant structure the claim recites: the portion protruding above the die holding surface is the protrusion, and the portion within the trench is the resilient mechanism, both integrally formed.
The argument that the member deforms as a whole is a description of unitary construction, not a distinction from it.
Chiu discloses a cavity adjacent the resilient mechanism
Applicant asserts “there is no cavity behind the member (610) that could permit the member (610) to bend “inwards into.”
However, Chiu discloses the contrary: “A spacing S1 may be between the trench 608 and the bending member 610. The spacing S1 may be configured to accommodate the bending member 610 in its strained shape.” See Par [0054] and Figs. 6A-6C; “… the depth T3 is greater than or substantially equal to twice the protrusion M3.” See Par [0054]; the trench is dimensioned with unoccupied volume beyond that is required by the member in its unstrained state.
“… the trench 608 is completely filled by the bending member 610 at this stage.”, See Par [0061] and Fig. 7C – confirming that unoccupied volume exists within the trench before compression.
The unoccupied volume is a cavity formed inside the bonding tool, adjacent to the resilient mechanism, into which the member deforms under a compressive force applied to its protruding portion. The is the same conceptual arrangement recited in the claim.
Applicant’s argument that the cavity must be a separate, distinct void as depicted by “there is no cavity that the spring (110) can extend into” imports a limitation from the specification that does not appear in the claim. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and limitations from the specification are not read in to the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s own disclosure does not support such a distinction because a cavity 120 is contagious with the central aperture 110 in which protrusion 60is received, and is not a structurally separate void.
“Bend inwards into” does not exclude lateral deformation
Applicant argues that because Chiu’s member “is squeezed and expands laterally while it is inside the trench (608),” it does not “bend inwards into the cavity.”
The claim recites deformation “inwards into the cavity”, inwardly relative to the die holding surface, i.e., into the body of the tool. The claim does not recite an axis of deformation, does not exclude a lateral component, and does not require deformation exclusively normal to the die holding surface. Chiu’s member 610 is clearly deformed and extends laterally in the trench 608 by extending laterally into the spacing S1 (See, for example, Par [0054] and Fig. 7B). Therefore, this is deformation into a void formed inside the bonding tool.
The asserted advantages are unclaimed and unsupported
Applicant asserts that lateral expansion “causes additional lateral stress onto the die and may cause inadvertent damage,” and that the claimed arrangement “improves reliability and avoids the imposition of resultant lateral stress.”
First, these advantages are not recited in the claims and cannot distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP §2145(VI).
Second, this is not supported by a test data, or comparative evidence, and evidence
has not been submitted. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of
factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602,
145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ
191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Third, an alleged disadvantage does not constitute teaching away where the reference does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Chiu Figs. 1D-3E likewise discloses a cavity
Applicant’s argument that spring 110b is “fully contained inside a closed trench (108)” with “no other cavity” Is not supported by Chiu. Bending member 110 further includes a vessel 110c comprising a tube 110d accommodating body 110a and spring 110b, the tube 110d having a height Ht in a range from about 3mm to about 11.5 mm (See, Figs. 1E-1F). As body 110a retracts, the spring 110b contracts and the interior volume of tube 110d previously occupied by body 110a is vacated …this creates an interior void within the bonding tool adjacent the resilient mechanism.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights