DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/010,456 filed on December 15, 2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 85-150, in the reply filed on September 1, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 151-169 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 135 (second claim 135) has been renumbered claim 136 and every claim number thereafter is increased +1, i.e. claim 136 becomes claim 137, etc., along with the corresponding claim dependencies as needed.
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:
fluid deployed between four or more die and said target substrate, and
points on said four or more die, and corresponding points on said target substrate (claims 85 and 119),
the four or more die comprise one-quarter of a die on said source substrate (claims 86 and 126),
the four or more die comprise half of a die on said source substrate (claims 87 and 127),
the four or more die comprise all of a die on said source substrate (claims 88 and 128),
a second set of chucking modules that receive said four or more die from said first set of chucking modules (claims 101 and 140, renumbered due to duplicate claim 135),
said second set of chucking modules further comprise actuation modules (claims 102-104 and 141-143),
wherein said actuation modules are arranged in one of the following arrangements: half-checkerboard, quarter-checkerboard, and octa-checkerboard (claims 103 and 142),
dispensing said fluid between said four or more die and said target substrate near edges of said four or more die with air in regions between said four or more die and said target substrate not occupied by said fluid (claim 109),
making a first contact between said four or more die and said target substrate near a center of said four or more die; and subsequently expanding a region of contact to a full extent of said four or more die (claim 110),
a fluid dispense system, a z-head assembly, and a bridge (claim 120),
a wet cleaning module (claim 121), and
wafer stage comprises one or more of the following: an air bearing stage and a roller bearing stage (claim 123),
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 85-150 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The preliminary amendment in this application was filed on 12/15/2022, the date of the national stage entry, however the international filing date is 3/28/2022. In this case, since the amendment was not filed on the filing date it falls under new matter. See MPEP 714.01(e): A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11. Also see MPEP 1893.03(e): The description, claims and drawing parts of the international application reflect the application subject matter on the international filing date and are important for comparison with any amendments to check for new matter.
In claims 85 and 119, the recited “a fluid deployed between said four or more die and said target substrate” adds new matter and has no written description support.1 There is no disclosure of a fluid deployed between said four or more die and said target substrate, meaning the die and target substrate must be positioned such that the fluid is deployed, i.e. moved into place, delivered, or injected, etc., between the dies and the target substrate. This requires an undisclosed sequence. There is no written description support for deploying a fluid as claimed. There is no disclosure of how the claimed fluid enables precision overlay, or enables anything at all. Next, the claim recites the precision overlay comprises a difference between a vector position of points on said four or more die and a vector position of corresponding points on said target substrate. The vector position and points have no written description support. The term vector does not appear in the original specification nor is there any description of any points or position thereof with respect to the dies or target substrate or how this relates to vector positions.
Claims 86-88 and 126-128 recite the four or more die comprise one-quarter of a die on said source substrate, the four or more die comprise half of a die on said source substrate, and the four or more die comprise all of a die on said source substrate. These claims add new matter and have no written description support. There is no disclosure of how the four or more die, picked from the source substrate, comprising one quarter, a half, or all of a die from the source substrate. The claim limitations do not make sense and appear to have been drafted in error.
Claims 90 and 130 recite using “a nanometer overlay metrology scheme”. There is no disclosure of a “nanometer overlay metrology scheme”. The claimed nanometer overlay metrology scheme therefore adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claims 91 and 131 recite precision overlay, enabled by the fluid, is achieved using “a moiré metrology scheme”. There is no disclosure of a “a moiré metrology scheme” used in conjunction with the claimed fluid. The claimed moiré metrology scheme in conjunction with the claimed fluid therefore adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claims 92 and 132 recite precision overlay, enabled by the fluid, is achieved using “an infrared moiré metrology scheme”. There is no disclosure of a “an infrared moiré metrology scheme” used in conjunction with the claimed fluid. The claimed infrared moiré metrology scheme in conjunction with the claimed fluid therefore adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claims 93 and 133 recite said fluid comprises one or more of the following: IPA, water, adhesive, UV-curable adhesive, light switchable adhesive, light-to-heat-conversion adhesive, and silicon low-k dielectric. There is no disclosure of the claimed fluid or it being any of the materials recited in these claims. The materials add new matter and have no written description support.
Claims 94 and 134 recite said target substrate is one or more of the following: a product substrate, a transfer substrate, an intermediate substrate, a carrier substrate, tape frame, dicing tape, tape, a silicon wafer, a glass wafer, a transparent wafer, a non-silicon wafer comprising GaN, GaAs, InP or SiC, and sapphire. There is no disclosure of the target substrate being GaN, GaAs, or InP. These add new matter and have no written description support.
Claims 95 and 135 (first claim 135) recite said bonding comprises one or more of the following: direct bonding, SiO2—SiO2 bonding, anodic bonding, fusion bonding, hybrid bonding, adhesive bonding, self-assembly, temporary bonding, and permanent bonding. There is no disclosure said bonding being direct bonding, SiO2—SiO2 bonding, anodic bonding, fusion bonding, or self-assembly. These add new matter and have no written description support.
Claims 96 and 136 (second claim 135, renumbered 136) recite an arrangement of said four or more die is arbitrary. There is no disclosure of the dies having an arbitrary arrangement. This adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claims 101-103 and 140-143 recite a second set of chucking modules that receive said four or more die from said first set of chucking modules. There is no disclosure of a second set of chucking modules that receive four or more dies from a first set of chucking modules. As best understood, this requires a first chucking module(s) to second chucking module(s) die transfer, the claimed second chucking modules are not shown or disclosed, nor are any details thereof such as the claimed actuation modules. This adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claims 103 and 142 recite said actuation modules are arranged in one of the following arrangements: half-checkerboard, quarter-checkerboard, and octa-checkerboard. The claimed arrangements of actuation modules of the second chucking modules are not shown or disclosed. This adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claims 105 and 144 recite a topography of said four or more die is varied during said placement and bonding using said one or more chucking modules. Topography refers to the shape of a surface, it is unclear how the shape(s) of the surface(s) of four or more die are being varied using said one or more chucking modules. In all of the figures the dies always appear to have the same flat, planar, surface topography that is not modified by the chucking modules. This adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claims 106 and 145 recite said one or more chucking modules comprise piezoelectric actuators to enable said topography variation. There is no disclosure of using piezoelectric actuators to enable said topography variation. This adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claim 109 recites dispensing said fluid between said four or more die and said target substrate near edges of said four or more die with air in regions between said four or more die and said target substrate not occupied by said fluid, wherein said dispensing of said fluid and said air enables said precision overlay between said four or more die and said target substrate. This adds new matter and has no written description support. There is no disclosure of the claimed dispensing the fluid near edges or the claimed air or how this supposedly enables precision overlay.
Claim 110 recites subsequently making a first contact between said four or more die and said target substrate near a center of said four or more die; and subsequently expanding a region of contact to a full extent of said four or more die. This adds new matter and has no written description support. There is no disclosure of the claimed first contact near a center of four or more die and expanding the contact to a full extent of four or more die.
Claims 113 and 150 recite a surface activation of said four or more die is performed prior to said assembling to enable said assembling. This adds new matter and has no written description support. A “surface activation” is only recited in ¶140 of the published application with respect to the description of the tool 100, but is not disclosed anywhere else with any specificity corresponding to any of the methods.
Claims 114-118 recite testing and details thereof. There is no disclosure of any testing. The claimed testing adds new matter and has no written description support.
Claim 120 recites a fluid dispense system, a z-head assembly, and a bridge, none of which are disclosed, thereby adding new matter.
Claim 121 recites a wet cleaning module, not disclosed, thereby adding new matter.
Claim 122 recites one or more chucking modules are attached to said z head assembly, not disclosed, thereby adding new matter.
Claim 123 recites said wafer stage comprises one or more of the following: an air bearing stage and a roller bearing stage, not disclosed, thereby adding new matter.
Claims 85-150 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.
Claims 85 and 119 each recite “precision overlay”, rendering the claims indefinite since the claimed “precision” is a subjective term of degree, not defined in the claims or specification. It is not clear what Applicant regards as “precision” or to what degree of “precision” is required or how the term “precision” is intended to be interpreted. The term “precision” may refer to the ability of a measurement or calculation to be consistently reproduced or to the accuracy and exactness of a quality or condition. Next, the claims recite “precision overlay is enabled by a fluid deployed between said four or more die and said target substrate”. It is not clear how a fluid deployed between said four or more die and said target substrate enables precision overlay since there is no disclosure of a fluid deployed between said four or more die and said target substrate. Next, it is unclear how precision overlay comprises a difference between a vector position of points on said four or more die and a vector position of corresponding points on said target substrate since there is no disclosure of any vector positions of any points on any dies or target substrates, differences thereof, or any reference or origin disclosed. It is unclear how to interpret a vector position of points on four or more die or the corresponding points on a target substrate. Points on four or more dies are simply points somewhere on dies, a vector is not simply a combination of points, a vector is a quantity having a magnitude and direction, and a position vector would require a position at least with respect to some unknown origin or reference point and each point on each die and substrate. Furthermore, the recited a vector position [singular] of points [plural] on die(s) or on a target substrate does not make sense. The specification provides no guidance with respect to the claimed vector position or points or how these are determined. It is unclear how to interpret these limitations in the claims.
Claims 86-88 and 126-128 recite the four or more die comprise one-quarter of a die on said source substrate, the four or more die comprise half of a die on said source substrate, and the four or more die comprise all of a die on said source substrate. It is confusing how the four or more die, picked from the source substrate, somehow comprise one quarter, one half, or all of a die on the source substrate. The claim limitations do not make sense and appear to have been drafted in error.
Claims 90 and 130 recite using “a nanometer overlay metrology scheme”. Since there is no “nanometer overlay metrology scheme” expressly defined in the specification or claims, the metes and bounds are unclear. There is no standardized nanometer overlay metrology scheme, the specification does not define this scheme, one would not know what is required or excluded in such a scheme, therefore one would be unable to determine when infringement occurs.
Claims 91 and 131 recite precision overlay between said four or more die and said target substrate is achieved using “a moiré metrology scheme”. Since there is no “moiré metrology scheme” expressly defined in the specification or claims, the metes and bounds are unclear. There is no standardized moiré metrology scheme, the specification does not clearly define this scheme, one would not know what is required or excluded in such a scheme, therefore one would be unable to determine when infringement occurs. Also, it is unclear how Applicant uses a moiré metrology scheme to achieve precision overlay with respect to the target substrate when there are no moiré patterns/marks/gratings on the target substrate nor is there any disclosure of using a moiré scheme in conjunction with the claimed fluid.
Claims 92 and 132 recite using “an infrared moiré metrology scheme”. Since there is no “infrared moiré metrology scheme” expressly defined in the specification or claims, the metes and bounds are unclear. There is no standardized infrared moiré metrology scheme, the specification does not define this scheme, one would not know what is required or excluded in such a scheme, therefore one would be unable to determine when infringement occurs. Also, it is unclear how Applicant uses a moiré metrology scheme to achieve precision overlay with respect to the target substrate when there are no moiré patterns/marks/gratings on the target substrate nor is there any disclosure of using a moiré scheme in conjunction with the claimed fluid.
Claims 95 and 135 (the first claim 135) recite the bonding comprises “self-assembly”. It is unclear how bonding comprises self-assembly or what type of self-assembly is used in the claimed bonding since the specification provides no guidance and there are many different types of self-assembly, e.g. self-assembled monolayers, fluidic self-assembly, etc. The only disclosure of self-assembly is found in ¶631 of the published application with respect to patterning a catalyst in an unrelated etching process. Also, if the fluid is supposed to be one of the adhesives recited in claim 93, it is unclear how the claimed direct, SiO2-SiO2, anodic, fusion, and hybrid bonding are performed since none of these bonding techniques are known to use an adhesive.
Claims 96 and 136 (the second claim 135) recite an arrangement of said four or more die is arbitrary. The limitation is confusing as this appears to contradict the claimed precision overlay recited in the independent claims. Either the dies are arranged with some degree of precision overlay or they are arranged arbitrarily. It is unclear how the arrangement can be simultaneously arbitrary while having precision overlay.
Claims 105 and 145 recite a topography of said four or more die is varied during said placement and bonding using said one or more chucking modules. Topography refers to the shape of a surface, it is unclear how the shape(s) of the surface(s) of four or more die are being varied. In all of the figures the dies always appear to have the same flat, planar, surface topography, regardless of the placement and bonding using the chucking modules.
Claims 107 and 146 recite distortion control of four or more die is utilized to enable precision overlay. Distortion control is not defined in the specification. The claimed distortion control is confusing as there is no standardized method or algorithm for distortion control, nor is it clear what is actually distorted in the first place or how one controls distortion or how this unknown process enables precision overlay. It is not clear what the claimed distortion control requires or excludes or when distortion is considered to be controlled.
Claims 89, 126-129, 134, 136, 139, 149, and 150 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 89 recites said assembling is performed to achieve a result without reciting any additional method step or process that would provide the result. The assembling is already performed to achieve precision overlay according to the independent claim, therefore claim 89 does not further limit claim 85.
Claims 126-128 recite details of dies on the source substrate and do not further limit the system (apparatus) of claim 119 by providing any additional structure or function.
Claim 129 recites said assembling is performed to achieve a result without reciting any additional structure or function and therefore and does not further limit the system (apparatus) of claim 119 by providing any additional structure or function.
Claim 134 recites details of target substrates and does not further limit the system (apparatus) of claim 119 by providing any additional structure or function.
Claim 136 (second claim 135) recites a arrangement of four or more die is arbitrary and does not further limit the system (apparatus) of claim 119 by providing any additional structure or function.
Claim 139 recites details of a source substrate and does not further limit the system (apparatus) of claim 119 by providing any additional structure or function.
Dependent claim 149 (originally numbered claim 148) depends from itself and therefore does not further limit claim 149.
Claim 150 recites a surface activation is performed prior to assembling and does not further limit the system (apparatus) of claim 119 by providing any additional structure or function.
Determining the scope and content of claims 85-150 is not reasonably feasible as substantial guesswork would be involved (see In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ 2d, 1653, 1655 (BdPatApp&Int 1989); and also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). In an effort to advance prosecution, prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is nevertheless cited and Applicant is reminded they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teaches pertinent pick-and-place methods and apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 It is noted some support for the claimed fluid was subsequently added when Applicant filed the CIP application 18/132,324 on 4/7/2023.