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 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 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.
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, 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 with respect to claims 1 and 15 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
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.
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