DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 01/21/2026 amending Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7. Claims 1 - 10 are examined.
Drawings
The 01/21/2026 amendments to Claims 1 and 5 have overcome the Drawing Objections in the 10/21/2025 Office Action; therefore, said are Drawing Objections withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koseki (JP2012104693A) in view of Ko et al. (2022/0052019A1) in view of Kim (7,803,661).
Regarding Claim 1, Koseki teaches, in Figs. 1 - 6, the invention as claimed, including a bonding tool (2 - Figs. 3 and 4) of a flip chip laser bonding apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising a bonding tool (2 - Figs. 3 and 4) configured to press a semiconductor chip (4) onto a substrate (Machine Translation Para. [0015] “The bonding apparatus according to the present embodiment is an apparatus for bonding an electronic component to a printed board. The electronic component in the embodiment is an IC chip 4.”) after fixing the semiconductor chip (4) through vacuum adsorption (Machine Translation Para. [0023] “Therefore, when the vacuum suction means 11 is operated, the IC chip 4 is attracted to the holding tool 2 by the suction force acting on the suction port 10.”); a laser generator (5 - Machine Translation Para. [0033] “…a solid laser such as a YAG laser, a laser such as a semiconductor laser, or a lamp such as a xenon lamp may be used”) installed above the bonding tool (2) and configured to (Machine Translation Para. [0002] “Conventionally, there has been a bonding apparatus that heats and joins electronic components by irradiating a laser from the inside of the bonding head.”) radiate a laser beam for bonding between the semiconductor chip and the substrate, wherein the bonding tool (2) is formed of an optical window comprising a single crystal material (Machine Translation Para. [0017] “The holding tool 2 uses a member that transmits the LED light 12 such as quartz or sapphire.” Applicant’s Specification disclosed, in the bottom of Pg. 4, “…the bonding tool must be formed of a material for optical windows, which includes quartz or sapphire single crystals which may physically press a semiconductor chip while transmitting a laser beam”) able to transmit a laser wavelength range radiated by the laser generator, and is configured such that a vacuum hole (10) for semiconductor chip (4) adsorption is formed through the bonding tool (2) so as to allow a vacuum to pass therethrough (Machine Translation Para. [0023] “Therefore, when the vacuum suction means 11 is operated, the IC chip 4 is attracted to the holding tool 2 by the suction force acting on the suction port 10.”), a vacuum wall (22) configured to maintain the vacuum at a time of adsorbing the semiconductor chip (4) is formed at outer parts (best seen in Fig. 4) of a contact surface of the bonding tool (2) with the semiconductor chip (4), contact protrusions (21) of uniform height (shown in Figs. 4 and 6, Machine Translation Para. [0022] “The convex portions 21 have the same height.”) configured to reduce a contact area of the bonding tool with the semiconductor chip (4) so as to control heat transfer from the semiconductor chip (4) to the bonding tool (2) are formed on the contact surface (20 – suction side) of the bonding tool (2) with the semiconductor chip (4), and the contact protrusions (21) are formed in a pattern (best seen in Fig. 3).
Koseki is silent on a non-contact thermometer configured to monitor a temperature of a surface of the semiconductor chip.
Ko teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5, a similar flip chip laser bonding apparatus (Title and Figs. 1 – 3) having a non-contact thermometer (240 – Figs. 1 and 2) configured to monitor a temperature of a surface of a semiconductor chip. Ko teaches, in Para. [0029] “That is, the infrared camera 240 may accurately measure the temperature of the semiconductor chip that varies between 50° C. and 500° C. through the transmitting portion 440”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Koseki with the non-contact thermometer configured to monitor a temperature of a surface of the semiconductor chip, taught by Ko, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the bonding tool of a flip chip laser bonding apparatus having a laser generator and a vacuum unit, and the non-contact thermometer configured to monitor a temperature of a surface of the semiconductor chip, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the non-contact thermometer (infrared camera) into the flip chip laser bonding apparatus would have facilitated monitoring the temperature of a surface of the semiconductor chip during the bonding process to confirm that the temperature was hot enough to reflow the solder bumps of the flip chip so that they adhere to the pads of the substrate. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Koseki, i.v., Ko, teach a bonding tool, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Koseki, i.v., Ko, is silent on said pattern is configured such that a heat transfer area of the semiconductor chip to the bonding tool at a center of the semiconductor chip is gradually reduced in a direction from the center of the semiconductor chip to outer parts of the semiconductor chip so as to achieve a uniform temperature distribution from the center of the semiconductor chip to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip.
Koseki further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0003], “Accordingly, heating of the electronic component by the laser is performed, and at the same time, heat leaks from the contact surface between the electronic component and the holding tool to the holding tool, and the heating of the electronic component is hindered”. Koseki further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0031], “However, since the contact area between the high temperature IC chip 4 and the low temperature holding tool 2 is made small by the convex portion 21, the heat flow from the IC chip 4 to the holding tool 2 is small, and the high speed.”
Kim teaches, in Figs. 1 – 9 and Col. 2, ll. 30 – 40, a similar bonding tool of a flip chip laser bonding apparatus (Title) having a laser generator (labeled in Figs. 5 and 7 - 9) and a vacuum unit (146 - Figs. 5, 7, and 8, 450 – Fig. 9). Kim teaches, in Figs. 2 and 4 and Col. 2, ll. 30 – 40, that “…the laser beam is not uniformly emitted to the whole region of the semiconductor chip 80. As shown in FIG. 2, the laser beam is emitted with stronger intensity at the center region of the semiconductor chip 80 than at the surrounding region and periphery of the chip 80. As a result, energy distribution in the semiconductor chip is very uneven due to the laser beam, which may cause the semiconductor chip 80 to be damaged, bonding quality to be deteriorated, or similar problems.” The uneven laser beam energy distribution, shown in Figs. 2 and 4, would have resulted in the center region of the semiconductor chip being heated to a higher temperature while the surrounding region and periphery of the semiconductor chip would have been heated to a lower temperature.
Thus, improving a particular device (bonding tool), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Koseki and Kim, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the bonding tool of Koseki, i.v., Ko, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that configuring said pattern such that a heat transfer area (the sum of the contact areas of the contact protrusions at the center of the semiconductor chip) of the semiconductor chip to the bonding tool at a center of the semiconductor chip is gradually reduced in a direction from the center of the semiconductor chip to outer parts of the semiconductor chip would have facilitated a uniform temperature distribution from the center of the semiconductor chip to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip thereby avoiding the problems of deteriorated bonding quality and semiconductor chip damage. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, the center of the semiconductor chip would have had a greater rate of heat transfer than the outer parts of the semiconductor chip due to the greater heat transfer area (the sum of the contact areas of the contact protrusions with the surface of the semiconductor chip) for conduction at the center of the semiconductor chip. Therefore, the center of the semiconductor chip would have received more cooling, i.e., heat transferred away from the semiconductor chip to the bonding tool by conduction, while the outer parts of the semiconductor chip would have received less cooling resulting in a uniform temperature distribution from the center of the semiconductor chip to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip thereby avoiding the problems of deteriorated bonding quality and semiconductor chip damage.
Re Claim 2, Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Koseki further teaches, in Figs. 3 and 4, wherein the contact protrusions (21) are independently formed to be spaced apart from corresponding adjacent ones of the contact protrusions (best seen in Fig. 3), refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, as discussed above, is silent on said cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions are gradually reduced as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to gradually reduce the cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool because Applicant has not disclosed that “said cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions are gradually reduced as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 3 recites a mutually exclusive embodiment to Claim 2. Claim 3 recites the “…cross-sectional areas thereof are the same and spaces between corresponding adjacent ones of the protrusions are gradually increased as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool from a center of the bonding tool”. The mutually exclusive embodiments is indicative of the fact that the claimed gradual reduction in the cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool is indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the combination of Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, because matching the heat transferred away by conduction from the semiconductor chip to the excessive laser energy intensity would have facilitated a uniform temperature distribution from the center of the semiconductor chip to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip thereby avoiding the problems of deteriorated bonding quality and semiconductor chip damage.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 2.
Re Claim 3, Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Koseki further teaches, in Figs. 3 and 4, wherein the contact protrusions (21) are independently formed to be spaced apart from corresponding adjacent ones of the contact protrusions (best seen in Fig. 3), and are configured such that cross-sectional areas (heat transfer area / conduction contact area) thereof are the same (best seen in Fig. 3).
Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, as discussed above, is silent on the spaces between corresponding adjacent ones of the protrusions are gradually increased as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool from a center of the bonding tool.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to gradually increase the spaces between corresponding adjacent ones of the protrusions are as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool from a center of the bonding tool because Applicant has not disclosed that “the spaces between corresponding adjacent ones of the protrusions are gradually increased as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool from a center of the bonding tool” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Claim 2 recites a mutually exclusive embodiment to Claim 3. Claim 2 recites the “…said cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions are gradually reduced as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool”. The mutually exclusive embodiments is indicative of the fact that the claimed cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions being the same while the spaces between corresponding adjacent ones of the protrusions are gradually increased as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool from a center of the bonding tool is indeed a “Design Choice”, as all options perform equally well as Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, and none of the options exhibits an advantage over the others and over Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the combination of Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, because matching the heat transferred away from the heat transferred away by conduction from the semiconductor chip to the excessive laser energy intensity would have facilitated a uniform temperature distribution from the center of the semiconductor chip to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip thereby avoiding the problems of deteriorated bonding quality and semiconductor chip damage.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 3.
Re Claim 5, Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Koseki further teaches, in Figs. 3 and 5, wherein the contact protrusions have a polygonal cross section (21 – Fig. 3 and 34 – Fig. 5 are shown as squares which had a polygonal cross section).
Re Claim 6, Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein a reduction ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions as the contact protrusions are closer to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip from the center of the bonding tool is proportional to a temperature difference changed in the direction from the center of the semiconductor chip, heated by radiating the laser beam, to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip. As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Kim teaches, in Figs. 2 and 4 and Col. 2, ll. 30 – 40, that “…the laser beam is not uniformly emitted to the whole region of the semiconductor chip 80. As shown in FIG. 2, the laser beam is emitted with stronger intensity at the center region of the semiconductor chip 80 than at the surrounding region and periphery of the chip 80. As a result, energy distribution in the semiconductor chip is very uneven due to the laser beam, which may cause the semiconductor chip 80 to be damaged, bonding quality to be deteriorated, or similar problems.” The uneven laser beam energy distribution, shown in Figs. 2 and 4, would have resulted in the center region of the semiconductor chip being heated to a higher temperature while the surrounding region and periphery of the semiconductor chip would have been heated to a lower temperature. Koseki taught, in Machine Translation Para. [0003], that it was known that heat transfer occurred due to conduction from the high temperature regions of the semiconductor chip to the lower temperature bonding tool through the cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions and that the rate of heat transfer was controlled by controlling the cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions, i.e., contact area.
Thus, improving a particular device (bonding tool), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Koseki and Kim, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the bonding tool of Koseki, i.v., Ko, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that having a reduction ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions as the contact protrusions are closer to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip from the center of the bonding tool is proportional to a temperature difference changed in the direction from the center of the semiconductor chip, heated by radiating the laser beam, to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip would have facilitated a uniform temperature distribution from the center of the semiconductor chip to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip thereby avoiding the problems of deteriorated bonding quality and semiconductor chip damage. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, the center of the semiconductor chip would have had a greater rate of heat transfer than the outer parts of the semiconductor chip due to the greater heat transfer area (the sum of the contact areas of the contact protrusions with the surface of the semiconductor chip) for conduction at the center of the semiconductor chip. Therefore, the center of the semiconductor chip would have received more cooling, i.e., heat transferred away from the semiconductor chip to the bonding tool by conduction, while the outer parts of the semiconductor chip would have received less cooling resulting in a uniform temperature distribution from the center of the semiconductor chip to the outer parts of the semiconductor chip thereby avoiding the problems of deteriorated bonding quality and semiconductor chip damage.
Re Claim 9, Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above and Koseki further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0026], wherein a contact rate between the contact protrusions and the semiconductor chip is 70%-1%. Koseki further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0026], “The area of the surface to which the IC chip 4 of the convex portion 34 is bonded is about ¼ of the area of the surface 32 on the suction holding side of the holding tool 30, but the area to be bonded is reduced, for example, it may be about 1/20, and its shape can be changed as appropriate”. The contact area, i.e., contact rate, of ¼ was 25% while 1/20 was 5% which both fall within the claimed range of 70%-1%. MPEP2144.05(I) stated “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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
Re Claim 10, Koseki, i.v., Ko and Kim, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including a flip chip laser bonding apparatus having the bonding tool according to Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Amended Claims 4, 7, and 8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent apparatus Claim 4, prior art fails to teach in combination with the other limitations of the claim, “...wherein the contact protrusions are independently formed to be spaced apart from corresponding adjacent ones of the contact protrusions, and are configured such that spaces between corresponding adjacent ones of the protrusions are gradually increased (d1, d2, d3, d4, and d5 – Fig. 6) as the contact protrusions are closer to outer parts of the bonding tool from a center of the bonding tool, and cross-sectional areas of the contact protrusions are gradually reduced (shown in Fig. 4, E1 had the largest cross-sectional area while E6 had the smallest cross-sectional area) as the contact protrusions are closer to the outer parts of the bonding tool from the center of the bonding tool”.
Regarding independent apparatus Claim 7, prior art fails to teach in combination with the other limitations of the claim, “...wherein the contact protrusions have a rectangular cross section, and are formed in a pattern configured such that the contact protrusions arranged in a horizontal direction have the same vertical width (shown in Fig. 4) and horizontal widths gradually reduced as the contact protrusions are closer to the outer parts of the bonding tool from the center of the bonding tool, and the contact protrusions arranged in a vertical direction have the same horizontal width and vertical widths gradually reduced as the contact protrusions are closer to the outer parts of the bonding tool from the center of the bonding tool (shown in Fig. 4)”. Claim 8 depends from Claim 7 and is in condition for allowance for the same reason.
Conclusion
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9, third to last paragraph that “Thus, Kim pertains to uneven, or Gaussian-profiled, irradiation of laser beam 11. Kim does not address uneven temperature on a semiconductor chip, as does presently rejected Claim 1”. This argument is not persuasive because it ignores “cause and effect”. Kim’s conventional laser beam that had the “uneven, or Gaussian-profiled” intensity was the “cause” that directly determined the subsequent outcome (the effect) of a semiconductor chip irradiated by said laser beam having an uneven temperature distribution. As cited by Applicant, Kim taught, in Col. 2, ll. 30 – 45 “As shown in FIG. 2, the laser beam is emitted with stronger intensity at the center region of the semiconductor chip 80 than at the surrounding region and periphery of the chip 80. As a result, energy distribution in the semiconductor chip is very uneven due to the laser beam…”. Therefore, the uneven temperature on a semiconductor chip (effect) was due to the uneven laser beam (the cause) that had a stronger intensity, i.e., greater energy per unit area, in the center of the beam and lower intensity, i.e., lower energy per unit area, as the radial distance from the center increased. Therefore, Kim teaches the cause of the uneven temperature distribution on a laser irradiated semiconductor chip. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9, last paragraph that “That is, at paragraph [0044] of published application 2020/025865 (present application), which discloses a flat-top laser beam being used, and as shown in FIG. 2 of the present application, "the contact surfaces of the contact protrusions E1 - E6, are flat so as to come into contact with the semiconductor chip." Flat-top laser beam B is uniform as compared to the Gaussian-profiled laser beam disclosed by Kim.” This argument is not persuasive because Applicant appears to be misinterpreting Specification Para. [0044] and Fig. 2. Specification Para. [0044] disclosed:
“In this embodiment, the contact protrusions E1-E6 are formed in a quadrangular column shape having a designated height, and the tips of the contact protrusions E1-E6, i.e., the contact surfaces of the contact protrusions E1-E6, are flat so as to come into contact with the semiconductor chip.”
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Para. [0044] does NOT disclose a “flat-top laser beam”. No paragraph in the original Specification disclosed “flat-top laser beam”. Consequently there is no support in the original disclosure for Applicant’s arguments. Specification Para. [0044] only disclosed that the contact protrusion tips were flat so that they could come into contact with the flat surface of the semiconductor chip. The word “flat” was only used four (4) times in Applicant’s Specification: once in Para. [0044] and three times in Para. [0051]. Para. [0051] disclosed “a conventional bonding tool having a flat contact surface”, “the conventional flat bonding tool”, and “the conventional flat bonding tool”. Accordingly, there is no support in the original Specification for the argued “flat-top laser beam”.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “flat-top laser beam”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues on Pg. 9, last paragraph that “Flat-top laser beam B is uniform as compared to the Gaussian-profiled laser beam disclosed by Kim”. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above. There is no support in the original Specification for the argued “flat-top laser beam” providing uniform intensity. Applicant appears to be misinterpreting Fig. 2. The dashed trapezoid shown in Fig. 2 illustrated a laser beam (B) from laser generator (20) diverging, i.e., beam diameter increasing, as the laser beam (B) traveled to and through the optically transparent bonding tool (10) to impinge upon the outward facing surface of the semiconductor chip (C). The bottom of the dashed trapezoid is shown in Fig. 2 as a straight line because the outward facing surface of the semiconductor chip (C) was flat. The semiconductor chip was NOT optically transparent so when the laser beam reached the flat outward facing surface of the semiconductor chip, said laser beam was stopped and the photons that made up said laser beam released their energy into the flat outward facing surface of the semiconductor chip resulting in unevenly heating said semiconductor chip.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument about “Flat-top laser beam B is uniform as compared to the Gaussian-profiled laser beam disclosed by Kim” is refuted by Applicant’s own disclosure. Specification Para. [0051] disclosed “the bonding tool disclosed in Patent Document 5 raised the temperature of the semiconductor chip to 350° C. even when low laser output was radiated to the semiconductor chip compared to the conventional flat bonding tool and exhibited a temperature variation of 100° C at maximum between the center of the semiconductor chip and the outer parts of the semiconductor chip in the diagonal directions,…the bonding tool according to this embodiment required similar laser output to the bonding tool disclosed in Patent Document 5 to raise the temperature of the semiconductor chip to 350° C”. So the laser beam of Patent Document 5 was uneven like Kim’s laser beam because the Patent Document 5 uneven laser beam (cause) produced uneven temperature on a semiconductor chip (effect) where the center of the semiconductor chip was around 350 °C while the outer parts of the semiconductor chip were only around 250 °C. So there was about a 100 °C temperature variation between the center and the outer edges of said semiconductor chip. And Specification Para. [0051] disclosed that Applicant’s invention (this embodiment) used a similar laser as used in Patent Document 5. Consequentially, Applicant’s arguments are contrary to Applicant’s own disclosure. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741