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 Status
The amendments to claims 1 and 5 dated 10 December 2025 are hereby acknowledged. Claim 3 was previously canceled.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "...providing, by the controller, a predetermined stand-by time set in advance based on a difference of end timings of the grounding steps among the plurality of bonding heads..." in the fourth section of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The controller was not introduced prior to this limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sen (US 20200083193 A1, hereinafter “Sen”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Sen discloses a semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus comprising: a stage (120 [0040] and Fig. 3A) on which a substrate (122 [0040] and Fig. 3A) is to be placed; a plurality of bonding heads (140 including 150 [0041] and Fig. 3A) movable in a horizontal direction independently of each other (each 140 positioned in X-Y plane [0042]) and each having a bonding tool (152 [0043] and Fig. 1B) holding a chip (102 [0043] and Fig. 3A) and movable in a vertical direction ([0041]); a controller (processor [0070]) for causing each of the plurality of bonding heads to execute a positioning process for horizontal positioning ([0070]), a grounding (interpreted as “placing”) process for lowering the chip until the chip is grounded (interpreted as “placed”) to the substrate or another chip ([0065]), and a pressurizing process (interpreted as “bonding”) for applying a bonding load to the chip that is grounded ([0065]); and a plurality of pick-up units (one or more feeder units and one or more die sources [0053]) provided corresponding to each of the plurality of bonding heads and supplying new chips to the corresponding bonding heads ([0053]), wherein during a non-pressurizing period in which none of the bonding heads is executing the pressurizing process, the controller causes the plurality of bonding heads to execute the positioning process and the grounding process independently of each other (Each 150 has an independent 154 for actuating 152 [0046]), and causes at least two bonding heads that have completed the positioning process and the grounding process to execute the pressurizing process in parallel such that their execution periods at least partially overlap (Bonding heads may be actuated in unison [0051]), and wherein the controller causes each of the plurality of bonding heads to execute a receiving process for receiving a new chip, the positioning process, the grounding process, and the pressurizing process in parallel (unitary feeding [0055], actuatable in unison [0048], and bonding in parallel [0051]), and provides a predetermined stand-by time for absorbing a difference of an end timing of the grounding process between the grounding process and the pressurizing process (Each bonding head actuation mechanism 154 may actuate each bonding tool independently, leading to a standby time for at least one bonding head before bonding in unison [0051]).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
404
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen (US 20200083193 A1, hereinafter “Sen”), in view of Terada (WO 2014157134 A1, hereinafter “Terada”), and further in view of MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding Claim 1 – Sen discloses a semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus comprising: a stage (120 [0040]) on which a substrate (122 [0040]) is to be placed; a plurality of bonding heads (140 including 150 [0041]) movable in a horizontal direction independently of each other (each 140 positioned in X-Y plane [0042]) and each having a bonding tool (152 [0043]) holding a chip (102 [0043]) and movable in a vertical direction ([0041]); a controller (processor [0070]) for causing each of the plurality of bonding heads to execute a positioning process for horizontal positioning ([0070]), a grounding (interpreted as “placing”) process for lowering the chip until the chip is grounded (interpreted as “placed”) to the substrate or another chip ([0065]), and a pressurizing process (interpreted as “bonding”) for applying a bonding load to the chip that is grounded ([0065]); and one pick-up unit (one or more feeder units and example of single die source [0053]) that sequentially supplies new chips to the plurality of bonding heads ([0053]), wherein during a non-pressurizing period in which none of the bonding heads is executing the pressurizing process, the controller causes the plurality of bonding heads to execute the positioning process and the grounding process independently of each other (Each 150 has an independent 154 for actuating 152 [0046]), and causes at least two bonding heads that have completed the positioning process and the grounding process to execute the pressurizing process in parallel such that their execution periods at least partially overlap (Bonding heads may be actuated in unison [0051]).
Sen fails to explicitly disclose the controller staggers execution timings of receiving processes of the plurality of bonding heads so that execution times of the receiving processes for receiving new chips by the plurality of bonding heads do not overlap each other.
However, Terada discloses the controller staggers execution timings of receiving processes of the plurality of bonding heads so that execution times of the receiving processes for receiving new chips by the plurality of bonding heads do not overlap each other (e.g. sliders 8a and 8b reciprocate from a receiving position at the pickup mechanism [0046] and Terada Fig. 1).
Terada is analogous to Sen because he describes a chip bonding process. Terada alternates loading chips onto bonding heads for the advantage of high speed with high pressure-bonding accuracy (Terada [0036] and Terada Fig. 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternate execution times for receiving new chips to enable a high-speed pressure bonding process.
Sen modified by Terada fails to explicitly disclose the controller provides a predetermined stand-by time set in advance based on a difference of end timings of the grounding processes among the plurality of bonding heads.
However, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP §2115: “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). See MPEP 2114(II).
PNG
media_image3.png
348
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
480
381
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 – Sen modified by Terada discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Sen and Terada further discloses the controller causes the at least two bonding heads to stand by in a grounded state until the grounding process by other bonding heads is completed after the grounding process of each of the at least two bonding heads is completed (Actuating each 150 may be independent and bonding may be simultaneous [0051]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sen (US 20200083193 A1, hereinafter “Sen”), in view of MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding Claim 4 – Sen discloses a semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus comprising: a stage (120 [0040] and Fig. 3A) on which a substrate (122 [0040] and Fig. 3A) is to be placed; a plurality of bonding heads (140 including 150 [0041] and Fig. 3A) movable in a horizontal direction independently of each other (each 140 positioned in X-Y plane [0042]) and each having a bonding tool (152 [0043] and Fig. 1B) holding a chip (102 [0043] and Fig. 3A) and movable in a vertical direction ([0041]); a controller (processor [0070]) for causing each of the plurality of bonding heads to execute a positioning process for horizontal positioning ([0070]), a grounding (interpreted as “placing”) process for lowering the chip until the chip is grounded (interpreted as “placed”) to the substrate or another chip ([0065]), and a pressurizing process (interpreted as “bonding”) for applying a bonding load to the chip that is grounded ([0065]); and a plurality of pick-up units (one or more feeder units and one or more die sources [0053]) provided corresponding to each of the plurality of bonding heads and supplying new chips to the corresponding bonding heads ([0053]), wherein during a non-pressurizing period in which none of the bonding heads is executing the pressurizing process, the controller causes the plurality of bonding heads to execute the positioning process and the grounding process independently of each other (Each 150 has an independent 154 for actuating 152 [0046]), and causes at least two bonding heads that have completed the positioning process and the grounding process to execute the pressurizing process in parallel such that their execution periods at least partially overlap (Bonding heads may be actuated in unison [0051]), and wherein the controller causes each of the plurality of bonding heads to execute a receiving process for receiving a new chip, the positioning process, the grounding process, and the pressurizing process in parallel (unitary feeding [0055], actuatable in unison [0048], and bonding in parallel [0051]), and provides a predetermined stand-by time for absorbing a difference of an end timing of the grounding process between the grounding process and the pressurizing process (Each bonding head actuation mechanism 154 may actuate each bonding tool independently, leading to a standby time for at least one bonding head before bonding in unison [0051], as embodiments may be combined [0038]).
Furthermore, claim 4 is an apparatus claim. Limitations containing phrases such as “...the controller causes...” and “...the controller... provides...” are method limitations. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Also see MPEP §2115: “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). See MPEP 2114(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 5 recites the allowable subject matter “... providing, by the controller, a predetermined stand-by time set in advance based on a difference of end timings of the grounding steps among the plurality of bonding heads”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument A – Claim 4 states the controller "provides a predetermined stand-by time for absorbing a difference of an end timing of the grounding process between the grounding process and the pressurizing process." “The applicant respectfully submits that the time difference between operations of respective bonding tools in Sen is an inevitable phenomenon since each bonding had actuation mechanism drives respective bonding tools independently. Therefore, the time difference could not be interpreted as stand-by time.”
Regarding Argument A – As explained above, each bonding head actuation mechanism 154 may actuate each bonding tool independently, leading to a stand-by time for at least one bonding head before bonding in unison [0051]. This represents a combination of embodiments, as mentioned in [0038].
Furthermore, as explained above, the stated limitation is a method limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does. See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Argument B – Claim 4 states “... During a non-pressurizing period in which none of the bonding heads is executing the pressurizing process, the controller causes the plurality of bonding heads to execute the positioning process and the grounding process independently of each other.” In other words, the controller causes the bonding heads to execute the positioning process and the grounding process during a non-pressurizing period.
Regarding Argument B – Each 150 has an independent 154 for actuating 152 [0046], as explained above.
Furthermore, as explained above, the stated limitation is a method limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does. See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Argument C – Claim 1 recites “...(t)he controller staggers execution timings of receiving processes of the plurality of bonding heads so that the execution times of the receiving processes for receiving new chips by the plurality of bonding heads do not overlap each other.”
Regarding Argument C – Terada discloses the chip sliders 8a and 8b reciprocate from a receiving position at the pickup mechanism [0046] and Terada Fig. 1. Therefore, the receiving processes are interpreted as not happening simultaneously.
Furthermore, as explained above, the stated limitation is a method limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does. See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Argument D – Claim 1 recites “...during a non-pressurizing period in which none of the bonding heads is executing the pressurizing process, the controller causes the plurality of bonding is to execute the positioning process and the grounding process independently of each other, and the controller provides a predetermined stand-by time set in advance based on a difference of end timings of the grounding processes among the plurality bonding heads.”
Regarding Argument D – As explained above, the stated limitation is a method limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does. See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571) 272-5944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a-5p Eastern, alternating Fridays out of office.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/JASON MCDONALD/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898