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 in this application 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1 and 20, and cancelled claim 18 on 07/06/2026.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amended claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 1-8, 13, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnworth (US 6,202,292) in view of Lee (US 8,858,756) and Oosterhuis (PG-PUB 2013/0323907).
Regarding claim 1, Farnworth teaches a process of picking up an electronic component from an adhesive tape on which the electronic component is mounted, the process comprising:
selecting an electronic component from a plurality of electronic components
arranged on the adhesive tape, each electronic component being located on the adhesive tape over a respective one of a plurality of supports upstanding from a support bed (Figure 1A and 1B, 4, and 5 and Col 5, ln 6-55), wherein each support is dimensioned and arranged to ensure the associated electronic component at least partially overhands the support (Figure 4; Col 5, ln 30-55; and Col 7, ln 21-35).
displacing the adhesive tape towards the support bed to peel the adhesive tape
from edges of the electronic component while the electronic component remains supported by the associated support (Figure 1A-1B, 2A-2B, 4, and 7 and Col 5, ln 31-Col 6, ln 7; Col 7, ln 5-20); and
displacing a gripper to detach the electronic component from the adhesive tape (Figures 4-6 and Col 7, ln 21- Col 8, ln 5).
Farnworth teaches vacuum die pick-up mechanisms which are well known and conventional in the industry are useful in the system.
Farnworth does not teach (1) displacing the gripper further comprises rotating the gripper while displacing the electronic component to assist in detaching any remaining adhered portion of the electronic component from the adhesive tape and (2) leaving the adhesive tape intact for reuse.
As to (1), Lee teaches a semiconductor wafer debonding system (Figure 2 and 3) for separating a semi-conductor wafer bonded to a supportive lamination for surface processing (Col 5, ln 5-35). Lee teaches a computer-controlled debonding fixture 112 is further configured to interact with the workpiece by applying thermal energy 134 (heat) and at least one computer-controlled separation force designed to further assist such stress-less debonding of the thin silicon wafer 105 from the supportive lamination 107, thereby avoiding fracture surface damage, or warping of extremely thin wafers (Col 5, ln 36-54 and Col 6, ln 46-55). Lee teaches a first vacuum chuck engaged with a wafer, wherein the first vacuum chuck is configured to apply computer-controlled separation forces 142 in an omni-directional manner at least consisting of at least one computer-controlled twist-force 144, at least one computer-controlled tilt-force 146, and at least one computer-controlled lift-force 148 (Col 6, ln 56- Col 7, ln 27). Lee teaches control computer 114 may be programmed to apply the above-noted separation forces singly, in combination, or in programmed sequence (Col 7, ln 25-27).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Lee’s technique for separating wafers is a desirable method for debonding wafers without causing damages. Lee teaches tilting, rotating, and lifting can be performed singly, in combination, or in sequence to separate a bonded wafer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Farnworth with Lee’s technique of combining lifting and rotating the gripper for separating a wafer, a known suitable separation technique for stress-less separation of a bonded wafer.
While Farnworth in view of Lee does not explicitly teach leaving the adhesive tape intact, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to use suitable shearing forces in the process of Farnworth in view of Lee to safely remove an electronic element from an adhesive tape without damaging the electronic component would likely avoid structural damage to adhesive tape that must be used for sequentially removing the remaining electronic components.
As to (2), Oosterhuis teaches in the field of release and pickup of ultrathin semiconductor dies, an active carrier is used for carrying a wafer (Figure 1 and 2). Oosterhuis teaches making use of (thermally) reversible reactions in the deactivation of the adhesive layer allow for an embodiment of a carrier comprising a reusable adhesive layer by heating the adhesive from the backside of the die (e.g. by a radiating energizer that radiates through a transparent adhesive layer onto the die) [0068]. Oosterhuis teaches using this heating technique has an advantage that less adhesive has to be cleaned from the die and that more adhesive remains on the carrier, and because most if not all of the adhesive stays on the carrier, this adhesive may be reused in the next wafer attachment process [0051]. Oosterhuis teaches in the conventional technique of picking up die adhered to an adhesive dicing tape with needles, it is possible that the difference in stiffness between die and tape is too low, e.g. with thinner dies, the die will start to curl in substantially the same way as the tape and no edge stresses will occur that initiate peeling or the adhesive strength of the tape is too high and the pushing action of the needles causes the die to bend and stretch thereby causing damage (Figure 2 and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Farnworth with the adhesive material and heating technique of Oosterhuis in order to provide thermally reversible reactions in deactivating the adhesive layer of the tape for the benefit of avoiding damage to the manufactured dies during separation and being able to reuse the tape for additional iterations of processing.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maintain the integrity of the tape during debonding in the process of Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis in order to reuse the adhesive tape as desired, thereby providing suitable vacuum, shearing, and pulling forces.
Regarding claim 2, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising positioning the electronic component such that the support is centrally located below the electronic component (Farnworth, Figure 5 and Col 5, ln 31-65).
Regarding claim 3, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the support is unitary and does not extend to edges of the electronic component (Farnworth, Figure 1B and 4 and Col 5, ln 31-Col 6, ln 7).
Regarding claim 4, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the support extends longitudinally along a length of the component and the support has a support surface that is smaller than a surface area of the electronic component facing the support face (Farnworth, Figure 1B; 2A-2E; and 4-7).
Regarding claim 5, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the support is immovably arranged on the support bed (Farnworth, Figure 1B; 2A-2E; and 4-7 and Col 6, ln 1-27).
Regarding claim 6, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the displacing of the tape comprises displacing the adhesive tape into a void defined between the adhesive tape and the support bed (Farnworth, Figure 1B, 4, and 7 and Col 5, ln 31-Col 6, ln 7).
Regarding claim 7, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 6, wherein the displacing of the tape comprises displacing the tape into the void using a vacuum applied to the void (Farnworth, Figure 1B, 4, and 7 and Col 5, ln 31-Col 6, ln 7; Col 8, ln 62-Col 9, ln 25).
Regarding claim 8, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 6, wherein the displacing of the tape comprises displacing the adhesive tape using the gripper by peeling away the electronic component from the tape (Farnworth, Figures 1B, 4, and 7 and Col 7, ln 4-35).
Regarding claim 13, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the gripper comprises a vacuum collet and the method comprises holding the electronic component with a vacuum suction force generated from the vacuum collet to detach the electronic component (Farnworth, Figures 1B, 4, and 7 and Col 7, ln 4-35).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the adhesive tape is retained on a planar, rigid carrier extending around a perimeter of the adhesive tape and the displacing the gripper detaches the electronic component from the adhesive tape leaving the adhesive tape intact on the carrier (Farnworth, Figure 1A and 1B, item 106; Col 3, ln 49-65; Col 5, ln 16-40; and Col 6, ln 3-20),
wherein the carrier is configured to be coupled over the support bed for positioning the adhesive tape and electronic component over the support (Farnworth, Figure 1A and 1B, item 106; Col 3, ln 49-65; Col 5, ln 16-40; and Col 6, ln 3-20).
Regarding claim 19, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising reusing the adhesive tape by placing an electronic component previously detached from the adhesive tape back onto the adhesive tape (see rejection of claim 1 and Oosterhuis, Figure 2 and [0038], [0051]).
Claim 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnworth (US 6,202,292) in view of Lee (US 8,858,756) and Oosterhuis (PG-PUB 2013/0323907), as applied to claim 1, 8, and 13, in further view of McCutcheon (US 8,852,391).
Regarding claim 9-12, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 8.
Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis does not teach:
(1) the displacing comprises displacing the adhesive tape by inserting at least a portion of the gripper between the electronic component and the adhesive tape;
(2) the gripper comprises a pair of jaws and the method comprises gripping the electronic component between the pair of jaws to detach the electronic component;
(3) wherein each jaw defines a gripping recess and the gripping comprises gripping the electronic component within the gripping recesses of the pair of jaws; and
(4) wherein at least one gripping recess has a sloping edge and the gripping comprises aligning the electronic component within the gripping recess using the sloping edge.
McCutcheon teaches a demounting process for separating a substrate from a device wafer using a clamp while the wafer is engaged to a chuck to allow for removal of the substrate without damage (Figure 7-9 and Col 19, ln 6-41). McCutcheon teaches high mechanical force required to move the device wafer away from the carrier by a sliding, lifting, or twisting motion creates additional stress that can cause the device wafer to break or produces damage within the microscopic circuitry of individual devices, which leads to device failure and yield loss (Col 3, ln 28-48).
McCutcheon teaches a clamp for separating a substrate from a device wafer (Figures 6A-6C, 7-9 and Col 16, ln 13-50),
wherein the clamp comprises a pair of jaws used to grip the substrate between the pair of jaws (Figures 6A-6C and Col 18, ln 16-47),
wherein each jaw defines a gripping recess and the gripping comprises gripping the electronic component within the gripping recesses of the pair of jaws (Figures 6A-6C),
wherein at least one gripping recess has a sloping edge and the gripping comprises aligning the electronic component within the gripping recess using the sloping edge (Figures 6A-6C and 7-9; Col 18, ln 16-64; Col 19, ln 6-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Farnworth with the gripper of McCutcheon, a known suitable gripper configuration, for the benefit of assisting in the removal of the electronic component without causing damage. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art performing the process of Farnworth in view of McCutcheon would have modified the process with gripping the electronic component between the pair of jaws to detach the electronic component as taught by McCutcheon to utilize the modified gripper of Farnworth in view of McCutcheon.
Regarding claim 14, Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis teaches the process as applied to claim 13.
Farnworth in view of Lee and Oosterhuis does not teach the vacuum collet defines a holding recess bounded on at least one side of the sensor by an abutment shaped to receive the electronic component and the gripping comprises holding the electronic component within the holding recess using the vacuum collet.
McCutcheon teaches a demounting process for separating a substrate from a device wafer using a clamp while the wafer is engaged to a chuck to allow for removal of the substrate without damage (Figure 7-9 and Col 19, ln 6-41). McCutcheon teaches high mechanical force required to move the device wafer away from the carrier by a sliding, lifting, or twisting motion creates additional stress that can cause the device wafer to break or produces damage within the microscopic circuitry of individual devices, which leads to device failure and yield loss (Col 3, ln 28-48).
McCutcheon teaches a clamp for separating a substrate from a device wafer (Figures 6A-6C, 7-9 and Col 16, ln 13-50),
wherein the clamp comprises a pair of jaws used to grip the substrate between the pair of jaws (Figures 6A-6C and Col 18, ln 16-47),
wherein each jaw defines a gripping recess and the gripping comprises gripping the electronic component within the gripping recesses of the pair of jaws (Figures 6A-6C),
wherein at least one gripping recess has a sloping edge and the gripping comprises aligning the electronic component within the gripping recess using the sloping edge (Figures 6A-6C and 7-9; Col 18, ln 16-64; Col 19, ln 6-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Farnworth by modifying the gripper of Farnworth with the gripper shape of McCutcheon, a known suitable gripper configuration, for the benefit of assisting in the removal of the electronic component without causing damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/H.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights