CTFR 18/060,596 CTFR 74457 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 21-22 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1-4, 6, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DZHANGIROV et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0415845) in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0229026) . Referring to figures 1-7, DZHANGIROV et al. teaches an apparatus, comprising: a bond head (17) configured to heat and compress a semiconductor package assembly; a bonding stage (20) configured to hold the semiconductor package assembly; and a controller (80) coupled to the bond head (17) and the bonding stage (20), the controller (80) configured to obtain a displacement of the bond head that results in a predefined, uniform chip gap height for the semiconductor package assembly (see figures 1, 7). Regarding to claim 2, the semiconductor package assembly comprises a plurality of semiconductor packages and a semiconductor panel (see figures 1, 7). Regarding to claim 3, the bond head (300) and the bonding stage (17) are configured to thermocompressively bond the plurality of semiconductor packages onto the semiconductor panel (see figures 1, 7). Regarding to claim 4, the bond head is configured to reflow solder flux between the semiconductor panel and the plurality of semiconductor packages (see figures 1, 7). However, the reference does not clearly teach the specific package size, the coefficient of thermal expansion, the specific temperature range (in claim 21), and the accuracy of displacement of the bond head (in claim 22). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the specific package size, the coefficient of thermal expansion, the specific temperature range (in claim 21), and the accuracy of displacement of the bond head (in claim 22), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e.- the specific package size, the coefficient of thermal expansion, the specific temperature range, and the accuracy of displacement of the bond head), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- the specific package size, the coefficient of thermal expansion, the specific temperature range, and the accuracy of displacement of the bond head) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was file would form the device with specific package size, the coefficient of thermal expansion, the specific temperature range, and the accuracy of displacement of the bond head in DZHANGIROV et al. because choosing an optimum range involves only routine skill in the art to form a desired semiconductor device. However, the reference does not clearly teach the bonding stage comprises a ceramic material including silicon and either magnesium or indium (in claim 1), bonding stage comprising comprises a cordierite ceramic or a lithium aluminosilicate-glass ceramic (in claims 1, 6), the bonding stage comprises a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of less than 1 ppm/K when heated up to 300 °C (in claim 7). Kumar et al. teaches bonding stage comprising comprises a cordierite ceramic or a lithium aluminosilicate-glass ceramic (see paragraphs# 65-66, meeting claims 1, 6), the bonding stage comprises a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of less than 1 ppm/K when heated up to 300 °C (it is noted that the same material has the same CTE, meeting claim 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form bonding stage comprising comprises a cordierite ceramic in DZHANGIROV et al. as taught by Kumar et al. because it is known in the art to prevent stressing the thin die. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thanh Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1695, or by Email via address Thanh.Nguyen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM to 3:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yara Green, can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for this Group 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to thy Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /THANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/060,596 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/060,596 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/060,596 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/060,596 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/060,596 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights