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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, including claims 1-11 and 17-20, in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the features of “first clamp fixing a dicing tape”, “when no pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion” and “when a pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion” (emphasis added). The terms “fixing” and “when” generally relate to a manufacturing process, rather than an apparatus.
Claim 2 recites the features of “as the first clamp descends from a standby position, the dicing tape exerts pressure on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, and the dicing tape, the first protrusion and the second protrusion descend together” (emphases added). The term “descend” as used in claim 2 generally relates to a manufacturing process, rather than an apparatus.
Claim 3 recites the features of “when the first clamp is positioned at a first height, the dicing tape is brought into contact”, “as the first clamp descends below the first height, the dicing tape lowers the first protrusion and the second protrusion”, “when the first clamp descends to a second height, the dicing tape is brought into contact with upper surfaces of the first protrusion, the second protrusion and the body” (emphases added). The terms “descend” and “brought into contact” as used in claim 3 generally relate to a manufacturing process, rather than an apparatus.
Claim 11 recites the features of “…the first stage or the second stage is selectively used depending on shapes of the plurality of divided dies.” The term “selectively used” as used in claim 11 generally relate to a manufacturing process, rather than an apparatus.
Since claims 1-9 are directed to an apparatus, the Examiner suggests the following amendments:
1. A semiconductor manufacturing equipment comprising:
a first clamp configured to fix
a first expander adjacent to the first clamp and including a body, a first protrusion connected to the body, and a second protrusion connected to the body and spaced apart from the first protrusion,
wherein, under a condition in which no pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to protrude from the body, and
wherein, under a condition in which a pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to descend into the body depending on a magnitude of the pressure exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion.
2. The semiconductor manufacturing equipment of The semiconductor manufacturing equipment of
wherein, [[as]] the first clamp is configured to descend from a standby position, the dicing tape is configured to exert pressure on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, and the dicing tape, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to descend together.
3. The semiconductor manufacturing equipment of The semiconductor manufacturing equipment of
wherein, with the first clamp is positioned at a first height, the dicing tape is configured to be contact with the first protrusion and the second protrusion,
wherein, [[as]] the first clamp is configured to descend below the first height, the dicing tape is configured to lower the first protrusion and the second protrusion, and
wherein, descended to a second height, the dicing tape is configured to be in contact with upper surfaces of the first protrusion, the second protrusion and the body.
11. The semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 1, comprising:
a first stage and a second stage,
wherein the first clamp and the first expander are disposed on the first stage,
wherein the second stage includes a second clamp and a second expander, wherein the second clamp is configured to ascend and descend, wherein the second expander is disposed inside the second clamp and has a flat upper surface, and
wherein the first stage or the second stage is configured to be selectively used depending on shapes of the plurality of divided dies.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “when no pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion” and “when a pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion” in lines 7-10. As understood by the Examiner, pressure is a measure of force applied to an object per unit area of the object. Therefore, the pressure as claimed requires some amount of force. All objects are acted upon by external forces (i.e. at least gravitational force). Objects at rest and at constant velocity have equal opposing forces (and corresponding pressures), and objects under acceleration have unequal opposing forces (and corresponding pressures). Therefore, the limitation “when no pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion”
As disclosed in ¶ 0056 of the instant specification, the protrusion portions appear to be configured to move (protrude/ascend, and retract/descend) due to external forces (pressure) caused by expanding a dicing tape. Therefore it appears that “no pressure is exerted” on the first/second protrusion means that zero net external force is acting upon the first/second protrusion, allowing the protrusions to remain at rest. Similarly, “pressure is exerted” on the first/second protrusion appears to mean that a non-zero net external force is acting upon the first/second protrusion, allowing the protrusions to ascend and descend.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in consideration of the above claim informalities, the Examiner has interpreted claim 1 to mean:
“…wherein, under a condition in which no net external pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to protrude from the body, and
wherein, under a condition in which a net external pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to descend into the body depending on a magnitude of the net external pressure exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion.”
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for implicitly including the indefinite subject matter above.
Claim 9 recites “an elastic force of a first elastic body connected to the first portion is greater than an elastic force of a second elastic body connected to the second portion and an elastic force of a third elastic body connected to the third portion” in lines 5-7. Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus (manufacturing equipment) which includes protrusion portions and elastic bodies. As disclosed in ¶ 0056 of the instant specification, the protrusion portions appear to be configured to respond to forces from a dicing tape by protruding/ascending, and retracting/descending. The meaning of the term ‘elastic force’ is unclear. Does this refer to the force applied onto the elastic bodies by expanding the dicing tape? Or a force applied by the elastic bodies onto the protrusion portions? Further, are these forces transient during the operation of the apparatus (while the dicing tape is in an expanded state)? The Examiner notes that the claimed apparatus is limited by structure, and would be the same whether it is in use (force applied by expanding dicing tape) or in an idle state.
As best understood by the Examiner, it appears the claimed ‘elastic force’ is a property of each elastic body which resists or opposes the force exerted by expanding the dicing tape. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 9 to mean:
9. The semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 6,
wherein the first protrusion includes a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, wherein the second portion and the third portion are disposed on both sides of the first portion, respectively, and
wherein an elastic property of a first elastic body connected to the first portion is greater than an elastic property of a second elastic body connected to the second portion and an elastic force of a third elastic body connected to the third portion.
Claim 11 recites
“wherein the first stage or the second stage is selectively used depending on shapes of the plurality of divided dies”, which amounts to a conditional limitation. The term ‘selectively used’ makes it unclear if the first stage is used, the second stage is used, or neither stage is used. Further, all divided dies have a shape, such that the term ‘depending on shapes’ does not particularly limit the claim. It is unclear what particular die shapes are required to invoke the use of the first stage, the use of the second stage, the use both of the first and second stages, or the use of neither of the first nor the second stage. Therefore, the scope of claim 11 is indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 11 to mean:
11. The semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 1, comprising:
a first stage and a second stage,
wherein the first clamp and the first expander are disposed on the first stage,
wherein the second stage includes a second clamp and a second expander, wherein the second clamp is configured to ascend and descend, wherein the second expander is disposed inside the second clamp and has a flat upper surface, and
wherein the first stage or the second stage is configured to be selectively used
Claim 17 recites two instances of the limitation "a force" in lines 16 and 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the second instance of this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the force applied to the second protrusion is the same force applied to the first protrusion, or a different force.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 17 to mean:
“…a first protrusion, which is connected to the first elastic body, standing by at a first position that is protruding from the annular-shaped body, wherein the first protrusion is configured to move to a second position along the first groove when a first force is applied to the first protrusion by the dicing tape; and
a second protrusion, which is connected to the second elastic body, standing by at a third position that is protruding from the annular-shaped body, wherein the second protrusion is configured to move to a fourth position along the second groove when a second force is applied to the second protrusion by the dicing tape.”
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, 4-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2023/0207352 A1) in view of Jung et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2021/0020483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a semiconductor manufacturing equipment (¶ 0039: 1) comprising:
a first fixing element (¶ 0038: 120) configured to fix
a first expander (¶ 0040: 130) adjacent to the first fixing element (fig. 2: 130 adjacent to 120) and including a body (¶ 0055: 136), a first protrusion connected to the body (¶ 0055 & figs. 7A-7B: left member 134 connected to 136), and a second protrusion (right member 134) connected to the body and spaced apart from the first protrusion (figs. 6A-6B, 7A-7B among others: each member 134 spaced apart and connected to 136),
wherein, under a condition in which no net external pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to protrude from the body (figs. 6B, 7B: in one operational state, 134 configured to ascend and vertically protrude from 130/136; Lim is silent to the ascension of 134 due to pressure exerted on 134, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “no pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion”), and
wherein, under a condition in which a net external pressure is exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to descend into the body (¶ 0063, figs. 6A, 7A: in a second operational state, 134 configured to descend into 130/136 in response to a pressure exerted by lifting device 125) depending on a magnitude of the net external pressure exerted on the first protrusion and the second protrusion (since the protrusions descend in response to external pressure, the movement implicitly depends on a magnitude of external pressure).
Lim does not explicitly teach the first fixing element comprises a clamp.
Jung teaches a semiconductor manufacturing equipment (¶ 0043: 100) comprising a first clamp (¶ 0043: 106) configured to fix a dicing tape (¶ 0042: 2, similar to DT of Lim), on which a plurality of divided dies are disposed (¶ 0042 & fig. 5: plurality of 2disposed on dicing tape 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the fixing element of Lim with a clamp, either in place of or in addition to the adhesive of Lim, as a means to more securely fix the tape to the frame ring (110 of Lim, 4 of Jung) while raising and/or lowering the ring.
Regarding claim 4, Lim in view of Jung teaches the semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of divided dies has a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction crossing the first direction, and the first length is shorter than the second length (Lim, ¶ 0047 fig. 5: D has a larger x-direction width than y-direction height).
Regarding claim 5, Lim in view of Jung teaches the semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 4 wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion are spaced apart from each other in the first direction (Lim, figs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 6, Lim in view of Jung teaches the semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 4 wherein the body has an annular shape (Lim, ¶ 0040: 130 comprises a ring shape), and
wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion are disposed at symmetrical positions in the first direction on a basis of a center of the annular shape (Lim, fig. 6A: left/right 134 positioned symmetrically with respect to center of 130).
Regarding claim 7, Lim in view of Jung teaches the semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 6 wherein each of the first protrusion and the second protrusion has an arc shape (Lim, fig. 6A: each 134 includes an arc shape).
Regarding claim 10, Lim in view of Jung teaches the semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 1, further comprising:
a die ejector (Lim, ¶ 0039: 160) disposed below the dicing tape (fig. 2 among others: 160 disposed below DT), and configured to select a die that is to be picked up, among the plurality of divided dies (¶ 0074 & fig. 12A: 160 selects at least one divided die to separate from DT).
Lim in view of Jung as applied to claim 1 above is silent to the die ejector further configured to push up the die that is to be picked up.
However, Jung teaches a die ejector (¶ 0044: 110, similar to 160 of Lim) disposed below a dicing tape (¶ 0044 & fig. 5: 110 disposed below dicing tape 2) and configured to push up and select a die that is to be picked up from the dicing tape (¶ 0044: 110 pushes a die 32 upward through dicing tape 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the die ejector of Lim to push up the die that is to be picked up, as a means to facilitate a pick-up process (Jung, ¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 11, Lim in view of Jung teaches the semiconductor manufacturing equipment of claim 1, comprising:
a first stage and a second stage (Lim, ¶ 0033 & fig. 1: 1 comprises at least two stages),
wherein the first clamp and the first expander are disposed on the first stage (Lim, fig. 2), and
wherein the first stage is selectively used (Lim, ¶ 0064 & figs, 11, 12A-12C: at least one stage of bonding equipment 1 is used).
Lim in view of Jung does not teach wherein the second stage includes a second clamp and a second expander, wherein the second clamp is configured to ascend and descend, wherein the second expander is disposed inside the second clamp and has a flat upper surface.
However, the Examiner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize that the second stage as claimed is a mere duplication of the first stage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the second stage of Lim in view of Jung to include a second stage including a second clamp and second expander, as a means to allow for parallel processing, improving throughput and manufacturing efficiency.
Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, the claimed second stage is a mere duplication of the claimed first stage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or clearly suggest the limitations stating:
“wherein, [[as]] the first clamp is configured to descend from a standby position, the dicing tape is configured to exert pressure on the first protrusion and the second protrusion, and the dicing tape, the first protrusion and the second protrusion are configured to descend together” (claim 2),
“wherein the first expander further includes:
a first groove and a second groove spaced apart from each other inside the body;
a first elastic body disposed inside the first groove; and
a second elastic body disposed inside the second groove” (claim 8), and
“a first elastic body disposed inside the first groove;
a second elastic body disposed inside the second groove;
a first protrusion, which is connected to the first elastic body, standing by at a first position that is protruding from the annular-shaped body, wherein the first protrusion is configured to move to a second position along the first groove when a first force is applied to the first protrusion by the dicing tape; and
a second protrusion, which is connected to the second elastic body, standing by at a third position that is protruding from the annular-shaped body, wherein the second protrusion is configured to move to a fourth position along the second groove when a second force is applied to the second protrusion by the dicing tape” (claim 17).
Lim et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2023/0207352 A1) teaches a semiconductor manufacturing equipment (¶ 0039: 10) comprising a first expander (¶ 0040: 120) adjacent to a first element (fig. 2: 120 adjacent to 110) and including a body (¶¶ 0040, 0055: 130 and/or 136) with first and second protrusions (132, 134), wherein, the protrusions protrude from the body (figs. 6B, 7B), and the protrusions are configured to descend into the body in response to pressure (¶ 0063, figs. 6A, 7A: in a second operational state, 134 configured to descend into 130/136 in response to a pressure exerted by lifting device 125). However, Lim does not teach first and second forces applied to the first and second protrusions by the dicing tape, or first and second elastic bodies.
Claims 3, 9 and 18-20 are allowable for depending on claims 2, 8, and 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights