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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/28/26 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As noted in previous office action, present claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus 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). 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) (MPEP 2114). In the instant case, configured to selectively generate a suction force at each of the openings (claim 1), controller configured to control the vacuum source, actuator system to align, to provide an ambient or positive pressure… (claims 10, 28-29) are functional limitations which do not structurally contribute to the apparatus.
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 1-9 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rai et al. (US 9038264, hereafter “Rai”) in view of Nagamoto (CN 1802735 A, see attached document).
Regarding claim 1, Rai discloses a die bonding tool, comprising:
a tool head 224 comprising a lower surface 230 having a plurality of openings 234 (figs. 21-25) extending along a first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction having different size cross-sectional areas; and
a vacuum source (not shown in figure) fluidly coupled to the plurality of openings in the lower surface of the tool head and configured to selectively generate a suction force at each of the plurality of openings to temporarily secure a semiconductor die against the lower surface of the tool head (col. 7, lines 51-57; col. 8, lines 1-10), the tool head is configured to apply compressive force to bond the semiconductor die to a substrate (col. 1, lines 44-47; col. 2, lines 2-4),
wherein the plurality of openings comprise: at least one first smaller cross-section opening positioned closer to any peripheral edge of the lower surface (first minimum offset distance) than at least one second larger opening farther from any peripheral edge (second minimum offset distance greater than the first distance), wherein the at least second larger opening is laterally offset from a center of the lower surface along the second horizontal direction (see fig. 25).
Rai is silent concerning the at least one second opening being closer to a center of the lower surface than the at least one first opening. However, such feature of varying openings is known in the art. Nagamoto (also directed to bonding collet tool for chips pickup and attachment- abstract) discloses a tool head 30 (collet) comprising a lower surface having a plurality of vacuum suction openings 32 (figs. 1a-1C, [0032]). Nagamoto teaches that aperture size and density of the vacuum holes can be different in the central and peripheral parts so that the appropriate pressure can be applied [0040]; the diameter of the holes in the central part is larger than holes in the peripheral part to apply different pressure so that ambient gas under the thin chip can be removed without forming bubbles to achieve good bonding, resulting in desired adhesion strength and quality product ([0040], [0123]). Rai is open to several different vacuum holes configurations embodied within the scope and spirit of his invention (figs. 21-25; col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 7, lines 51-57) - figs. 21-25 shows multiple columns of vacuum holes (openings P1-P3) scattered throughout the lower surface of the tool head; fig. 25 shows multiple sizes of openings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of second openings with greater diameter closer to central portion than a plurality of first openings with smaller diameter at the peripheral portion in tool head lower surface of Rai because doing so would enable to apply desired differing pressures to the die, such that any ambient gas under the die can be removed without forming bubbles to achieve good bonding, resulting in sufficient adhesion strength, as suggested by Nagamoto.
As to claim 2, Rai as modified by Nagamoto above discloses smaller diameter openings at peripheral portion (first openings) and larger diameter openings near central portion (second openings) of the lower surface (figs. 23-25 of Rai) – this encompasses the first minimum offset distance between one of the plurality of first smaller openings and any peripheral edge of the lower surface being less than the second minimum offset distance, wherein, for each of the plurality of first openings, the first minimum offset distance is the shortest distance between that first opening and its nearest peripheral edge of the lower surface of the tool head, and for each of the plurality of second openings, the second minimum offset distance is the shortest distance between that second opening and its nearest peripheral edge of the lower surface of the tool head.
As to claims 3-5, Rai teaches several different vacuum holes configurations embodied within the scope and spirit of his invention (col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 7, lines 51-57) - figs. 21-25 shows multiple columns of vacuum holes (openings P1-P3) scattered throughout the lower surface of the tool head; fig. 25 shows multiple columns of openings as well as multiple sizes of openings. Rai as modified by Nagamoto above discloses smaller diameter openings at peripheral portion (first openings) and larger diameter openings near central portion (second openings) of the lower surface (figs. 23-25 of Rai). Rai further teaches that areas of the vacuum tip having a greater density of vacuum holes exert a larger force on the semiconductor die (col. 6, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide second openings arranged in a first column of second openings, a second column of second openings located on opposite sides of a center of the lower surface, and a third column of second openings through the center of the lower surface, the openings extending around the center on four sides, as recited in the combination of Rai & Nagamoto with a motivation to apply larger vacuum force to secure the die.
As to claims 6-7, in one embodiment, Rai teaches a third group of openings P3 having a third different pressure (fig. 24), wherein the relative strengths of the vacuum sources may be controlled so as to create a net force profile across the die (col. 8, lines 1-14). A minimum offset distance between the at least one third opening P3 and any peripheral edge of the lower surface of the tool head is greater than the first minimum offset distance and is less than the second minimum offset distance (fig. 24). Rai as modified by Nagamoto above discloses smaller diameter openings at peripheral portion (first openings) and larger diameter openings near central portion (second openings) of the lower surface (figs. 23-25 of Rai). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide at least one third opening having a third cross-section area that is greater than the first cross-section area and less than the second cross-section area in the combination of Rai & Nagamoto with a purpose to create desired suction net force across the die.
As to claim 8, Rai teaches several different vacuum holes configurations embodied within the scope and spirit of the invention (figs. 21-25; col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 7, lines 51-57) – fig. 25 shows multiple sizes of openings, wherein the second cross-section area of the at least one second opening appears to be at least two times greater than the first cross-section area of the at least one first opening. Rai as modified by Nagamoto above discloses smaller diameter openings at peripheral portion (first openings) and larger diameter openings near central portion (second openings) of the lower surface (figs. 23-25 of Rai). Moreover, Rai teaches that areas of the vacuum tip having a greater density of vacuum holes exert a larger force on the semiconductor die (col. 6, lines 1-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a larger opening to a smaller opening with a ratio of about 2 times in the combination of Rai & Nagamoto with a motivation to apply larger vacuum force to secure the die.
As to claim 9, Rai shows that the tool head 224 comprises an internal plenum and a plurality of fluid conduits extending between the internal plenum and the plurality of openings 234 in the lower surface 230 of the tool head, and the die bonding tool further comprises a fluid conduit that fluidly couples the internal plenum to the vacuum source (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 21, Rai discloses a die bonding tool, comprising: a tool head 224 having a lower surface 230 comprising a plurality of holes/openings 234 (figs. 21-25) extending along a first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction having non-uniform size cross-sectional areas, wherein at least one first smaller cross-section opening is positioned closer to any peripheral edge of the lower surface (first minimum offset distance) than at least one second larger opening farther from any peripheral edge (second minimum offset distance greater than the first distance), wherein the at least second larger opening is laterally offset from a center of the lower surface along the second horizontal direction (see fig. 25); and
a vacuum source (not shown in figure) fluidly coupled to the plurality of openings in the lower surface of the tool head and configured to selectively generate a suction force at each of the plurality of openings to temporarily secure a semiconductor die against the lower surface of the tool head (col. 7, lines 51-57; col. 8, lines 1-10). Rai teaches several different vacuum holes configurations embodied within the scope and spirit of the invention (figs. 21-25; col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 7, lines 51-57) – fig. 25 shows multiple sizes of openings, wherein a ratio of a diameter of the larger opening to a smaller opening appears to fall within about 2-3 times. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Rai teaches that areas of the vacuum tip having a greater density of vacuum holes exert a larger force on the semiconductor die (col. 6, lines 1-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a larger opening to a smaller opening with a ratio of about 2-3 times in the tool head of Rai with a motivation to apply larger vacuum force to effectively secure the semiconductor die.
Rai is silent concerning the at least one larger opening being closer to a center of the lower surface than the at least one smaller opening. However, such feature of varying openings is known in the art. Nagamoto (also directed to bonding collet tool for chips pickup and attachment- abstract) discloses a tool head 30 (collet) comprising a lower surface having a plurality of vacuum suction openings 32 (figs. 1a-1C, [0032]). Nagamoto teaches that aperture size and density of the vacuum holes can be different in the central and peripheral parts so that the appropriate pressure can be applied [0040]; the diameter of the holes in the central part is larger than holes in the peripheral part to apply different pressure so that ambient gas under the thin chip can be removed without forming bubbles to achieve good bonding, resulting in desired adhesion strength and quality product ([0040], [0123]). Rai is open to several different vacuum holes configurations embodied within the scope and spirit of his invention (figs. 21-25; col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 7, lines 51-57) - figs. 21-25 shows multiple columns of vacuum holes (openings P1-P3) scattered throughout the lower surface of the tool head; fig. 25 shows multiple sizes of openings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of second openings with greater diameter closer to central portion than a plurality of first openings with smaller diameter at the peripheral portion in tool head lower surface of Rai because doing so would enable to apply desired differing pressures to the die, such that any ambient gas under the die can be removed without forming bubbles to achieve good bonding, resulting in sufficient adhesion strength, as suggested by Nagamoto.
As to claim 22, Rai discloses that each of the openings has a circular cross-section shape, and the dimension of each of the openings comprises a diameter of each of the openings (fig. 25).
As to claim 23, in one embodiment, Rai discloses the diameter (h- fig. 12) of the opening being 823 µm or about 0.8 mm (col. 5, line 34), which falls within the recited range of between 0.1 mm and 1.75 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 24, Rai shows teaches smaller openings located most proximate to a periphery of the lower surface in at least one embodiment (figs. 21-23). Rai is open to different vacuum holes configurations with different sizes (figs. 21-25; col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 7, lines 51-57). Rai as modified by Nagamoto above includes smaller openings located proximate to a periphery of the lower surface and larger openings located distal to the periphery of the lower surface. Moreover, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have found it obvious to have either smaller or larger openings most proximate to a periphery of the lower surface since both configurations are embodied within the scope and spirit of the Rai’s invention. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (see MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 25, Rai discloses a die bonding tool, comprising: a tool head 224 comprising a lower surface 230 having a plurality of holes/openings 234 (figs. 21-25) extending along a first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction having non-uniform size cross-sectional areas, with at least one smaller opening positioned closer to any peripheral edge of the lower surface than at least one larger opening, which is laterally offset from a center of the lower surface along the second horizontal direction (see fig. 25); and
a vacuum source (not shown in figure) fluidly coupled to the plurality of openings in the lower surface of the tool head and configured to selectively generate a suction force at each of the plurality of openings to temporarily secure a semiconductor die against the lower surface of the tool head (col. 7, lines 51-57; col. 8, lines 1-10).
Rai is silent concerning the opening area/size increasing from a peripheral edge toward to a center of the lower surface. However, such feature of varying openings size is known in the art. Nagamoto (also directed to bonding collet tool for chips pickup and attachment- abstract) discloses a tool head 30 (collet) comprising a lower surface having a plurality of vacuum suction openings 32 (figs. 1a-1C, [0032]). Nagamoto teaches that aperture size and density of the vacuum holes can be different in the central and peripheral parts so that the appropriate pressure can be applied [0040]; the diameter of the holes in the central part is larger than holes in the peripheral part to apply different pressure so that ambient gas under the thin chip can be removed without forming bubbles to achieve good bonding, resulting in desired adhesion strength and quality product ([0040], [0123]). Rai is open to several different vacuum holes configurations embodied within the scope and spirit of his invention (figs. 21-25; col. 4, lines 5-15; col. 7, lines 51-57) - figs. 21-25 shows multiple columns of vacuum holes (openings P1-P3) scattered throughout the lower surface of the tool head; fig. 25 shows multiple sizes of openings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of second openings with greater diameter closer to central portion than a plurality of first openings with smaller diameter at the peripheral portion in tool head lower surface of Rai because doing so would enable to apply desired differing pressures to the die, such that any ambient gas under the die can be removed without forming bubbles to achieve good bonding, resulting in sufficient adhesion strength, as suggested by Nagamoto.
As to claim 26, Rai shows that the plurality of openings in the lower surface of the tool head comprise a plurality of first openings having the first cross-section area and a plurality of second openings having the second cross-section area, wherein the first minimum offset distance between one of the plurality of first smaller openings and any peripheral edge of the lower surface of the tool head is less than the second minimum offset distance between one of the plurality of second larger openings and any peripheral edge of the lower surface of the tool head (see fig. 25). Rai as modified by Nagamoto above renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 27, Rai shows that the tool head 224 comprises an internal plenum and a plurality of fluid conduits extending between the internal plenum and the plurality of openings 234 in the lower surface 230 of the tool head, and the die bonding tool further comprises a fluid conduit that fluidly couples the internal plenum to the vacuum source (fig. 11).
Claims 10-12 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rai in view of Nagamoto as applied to claims 9 & 25 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0186282, hereafter “Kim”).
As to claims 10 and 28-29, Rai does not disclose the die bonding tool further comprising a system controller. However, such feature is known in the art. Kim (also drawn to die bonding apparatus) discloses a tool head 100 with a lower surface comprising vacuum holes/openings 124 to pick up and move the dies D (figs. 2-3). Kim teaches a system controller 500 coupled to the bonding head 100 as well as stage 200 through respective actuators/drivers 110/210 (fig. 5, [0026, 0031]. The controller 500, along with hardware & software computing device, connects to the drivers 110/210 to provide both macroscopic alignment and microscopic alignment to position and bond the dies D to the substrate S [0039-0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a system controller and actuators/drivers similar to Kim in the die bonding tool of Rai because doing so would enable to provide accurate alignment for positioning and bonding the dies to the appropriate region(s) on the substrate. Thus, Rai as modified by Kim disclose the die bonding tool comprising the system controller that is configured to: control the vacuum source to generate the suction force at each of the plurality of openings that are configured to temporarily secure the semiconductor die against the lower surface of the tool head; control the actuator system to align the semiconductor die over a bonding region of the substrate; control the actuator system to move bring the semiconductor die into contact with the bonding region of the substrate; provide an ambient or positive pressure at the plurality of openings to release the semiconductor die from the lower surface of the tool head; and control the actuator system to apply the compressive force on the semiconductor die to bond the semiconductor die to the substrate. Examiner notes the claims recite functional limitations (see Claim Interpretation above).
As to claims 11-12, the actuator system in the combination of Rai, Nagamoto & Kim is well configured to move the tool head or to move the substrate in order to: align the semiconductor die over the bonding region of the substrate; and bring the semiconductor die into contact with bonding region of the substrate.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to recently amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection(s) set forth above. Current 103 rejection(s) now includes new reference of Nagamoto and addresses the added features in the claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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 Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights