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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 11/1/23 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration filed on 1/10/23 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0398935) or Hamazaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0288416) in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0229026).
Referring to figures 1-7, Kim et al. teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a bond head (300) configured to heat and compress a semiconductor package assembly; and
a bonding stage (CT) configured to hold the semiconductor package assembly (C1/C2/C3).
Regarding to claim 2, the semiconductor package assembly comprises a plurality of semiconductor packages (C1/C2/C3) and a semiconductor panel (W).
Regarding to claim 3, the bond head (300) and the bonding stage (CT) are configured to thermocompressively bond the plurality of semiconductor packages onto the semiconductor panel (see figure 1).
Regarding to claim 4, the bond head is configured to reflow solder flux (B) between the semiconductor panel (W) and the plurality of semiconductor packages (C1/C2/C3, see figure 1).
Regarding to claim 5, the bonding stage comprises a heating element (SH).
Or referring to figures 1-3, Hamazaki teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a bond head (12) configured to heat and compress a semiconductor package assembly; and
a bonding stage (11) configured to hold the semiconductor package assembly (200), wherein the bonding stage comprises a ceramic material (see paragraph# 26).
Regarding to claim 5, the bonding stage comprises a heating element (13).
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 Kim et al. as taught by Kumar et al. because it is known in the art to prevent stressing the thin die.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights