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 without traverse of Invention I, Species I, claims 1-10, 12-14, 16, and 21-24 in the reply filed on 6/11/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “angled or stepped outer surface” of claim 9, the “variable speed blower” and “fan” of claim 23, and the “valve” of claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an actuator system configured to move” in claims 1 and 21”, “a vacuum source… configured to selectively generate” in claim 2, and “a fluid source configured to selectively provide” in claims 6 and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10, 13, 14, 16, and 21-24 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.
Claims 1 and 21 limitation “an actuator system configured to move” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim 2 limitation “a vacuum source… configured to selectively generate” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structures, materials, or acts to the functions. The disclosure is devoid of any structures that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the system controller controls the actuator system to move the bond head with respect to the target substrate”. However, it is unclear if this “to move the bond head” is the same “movement of the bond head” in claim 12. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as it is the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamauchi (US 2017/0221856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi discloses:
A die bonding tool [bonding apparatus (100); figure 1], comprising:
a bond head [stage (402), heater (422), and unlabeled backing plate; figures 1 and 8] configured to secure a semiconductor die temporarily to a lower surface of the bond head [see figure 7], the bond head comprising
a moveable component [protruding mechanism (430)] located at least partially within an internal chamber of the bond head [figures 7 and 8 depict the protruding mechanism embedded within an internal chamber],
wherein the moveable component is moveable with respect to the internal chamber between a first position in which a lower surface of the moveable component protrudes below the lower surface of the bond head and a second position in which the lower surface of the moveable component does not protrude below the lower surface of the bond head [0085-0088 and figures 3 and 4]; and
an actuator system [stage driving mechanism (400)] configured to move the bond head and the semiconductor die temporarily secured thereto towards an upper surface of a target substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Yamauchi discloses:
wherein the lower surface of the bond head comprises a lower surface of a nozzle plate [stage (402) may comprise holder mechanism (440) which may be a vacuum chuck; 0098-0101 and figure 8] having at least one port [suction grooves (440a,b)] therein, and the die bonding tool further comprises:
a vacuum source fluidly coupled to the at least one port in the nozzle plate and configured to selectively generate a suction force at the at least one port in the nozzle plate to secure the semiconductor die temporarily against the lower surface of the nozzle plate [in order for there to be a vacuum chuck and suction at the suction grooves there is inherently a vacuum source coupled to the suction grooves].
Regarding claim 3, Yamauchi discloses:
wherein the internal chamber is located in a central region of the nozzle plate and comprises an opening that is coplanar with the lower surface of the nozzle plate [see figures 7 and 8].
Regarding claim 4, Yamauchi discloses:
wherein a width dimension of the internal chamber is equal to or less than half of a width dimension of the lower surface of the nozzle plate [see figure 8].
Regarding claim 6, Yamauchi discloses:
a fluid source configured to selectively provide a fluid to the internal chamber of the bond head to control a position of the moveable component with respect to the internal chamber [air is supplied to a cylinder mechanism; 0088].
Regarding claim 7, Yamauchi discloses:
at least one retaining member [bottom plate of the stage in figure 8 which has an opening] located around a periphery of the internal chamber of the bond head and defining a width of an opening to the internal chamber [see figure 8].
Regarding claim 8, Yamauchi discloses:
wherein a maximum width of the moveable component is greater than the width of the opening to the internal chamber defined by the at least one retaining member [see figure 8].
Regarding claim 9, Yamauchi discloses:
wherein a lower portion of the moveable component comprises a curved [curved; 0097 and figure 8], angled or stepped outer surface to enable the lower portion of the moveable component to protrude from the internal chamber below a plane of the lower surface of the nozzle plate.
Regarding claim 12, Yamauchi discloses:
A die bonding tool [bonding apparatus (100); figure 1], comprising:
a bond head [stage (402), heater (422), and unlabeled backing plate; figures 1 and 8] configured to secure a semiconductor die temporarily against a surface of the bond head, the bond head comprising
a moveable component [protruding mechanism (430)] that is moveable with respect to the surface of the bond head; and
a system controller [controller (700)] operatively coupled to the bond head and configured to:
control a movement of the bond head and the semiconductor die secured thereto with respect to a target substrate [0059, 0065-0077]; and
control a position of the moveable component with respect to the surface of the bond head [0059, 0089].
Regarding claim 13, Yamauchi discloses:
an actuator system [stage driving mechanism (400)] coupled to the bond head, wherein the system controller controls the actuator system to move the bond head with respect to the target substrate [0059, 0064-0097]; and
a vacuum source [stage (402) may comprise holder mechanism (440) which may be a vacuum chuck; 0098-0101 and figure 8, which is inherently connected to a vacuum source in order for there to be a vacuum chuck and suction at the suction grooves] fluidly coupled to at least one port [suction grooves (440a,b)] in the surface of the bond head,
wherein the system controller controls the vacuum source to selectively provide a suction force at the at least one port to secure the semiconductor die against the surface of the bond head [since the controller controls each aspect of the bonding apparatus; 0059, then it would also control the vacuum source in order to operate the holding mechanism as noted in 0099-0114].
Regarding claim 14, Yamauchi discloses:
a fluid source [air is supplied to a cylinder mechanism; 0088] in fluid communication with the moveable component, wherein the system controller controls a flow of fluid from the fluid source to the moveable component to control a position of the moveable component with respect to the surface of the bond head [since the controller controls each aspect of the bonding apparatus; 0059, then it would also control the cylinder mechanism in order to operate the protruding mechanism as noted in 0085-0097].
Regarding claim 16, Yamauchi discloses:
a heat source [heater (422); figure 1], wherein the system controller controls the heat source to selectively heat the semiconductor die [0059, 0116].
Regarding claim 21, Yamauchi discloses:
A die bonding system [bonding apparatus (100); figure 1], comprising:
a bond head [stage (402), heater (422), and unlabeled backing plate; figures 1 and 8] configured to secure a semiconductor die temporarily to a lower surface of the bond head [see figure 7], the bond head comprising
a moveable component [protruding mechanism (430)] located at least partially within an internal chamber of the bond head [figures 7 and 8 depict the protruding mechanism embedded within an internal chamber],
wherein the moveable component is moveable with respect to the internal chamber between a first position in which a lower surface of the moveable component protrudes below the lower surface of the bond head and a second position in which the lower surface of the moveable component does not protrude below the lower surface of the bond head [0085-0088 and figures 3 and 4];
an actuator system [stage driving mechanism (400)] configured to move the bond head and the semiconductor die temporarily secured thereto towards an upper surface of a target substrate; and
a fluid source [air is supplied to a cylinder mechanism; 0088] coupled to the bond head and configured to selectively provide a fluid [air] to the internal chamber of the bond head at a flow rate to position the moveable component between the first position and the second position.
Regarding claim 22, Yamauchi discloses:
wherein the fluid provided by the fluid system comprises a gas [air; 0088].
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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 2017/0221856 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 9 above.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Yamauchi does not teach:
wherein the lower surface of the moveable component is configured to protrude below a plane of the lower surface of the nozzle plate by a maximum protrusion distance of at least 0.1 µm, or
wherein a maximum distance by which the moveable component is able to protrude below the plane of the lower surface of the nozzle plate is equal to or less than half of the maximum width of the moveable component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to limit the amount of protrusion of the protruding member to that claimed based on the size of the components involved, the desired amount of bending, and/or the mechanical limitations of the protruding member, minus any unexpected results.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 2017/0221856 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, in further view of Murray et al. (US 2025/0249586 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Yamauchi does not teach:
wherein the fluid source comprises a variable speed blower or fan configured to control the flow rate of fluid into the internal chamber.
Note that Yamauchi teaches a using air pressure to change the pressing force of the protruding mechanism; 0088, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to that this describes a pneumatic actuator.
Murray teaches pneumatic actuators comprise cylinders, valves, and pressures sources/blowers; 0046.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a pneumatic actuator like that taught by Murray since it is a known device, minus any unexpected results. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a variable speed blower in order to adjust the air flow rate which in turn would adjust the pressing force as desired.
Regarding claim 24, Yamauchi does not teach:
wherein the fluid source comprises at least one valve configured to control the flow rate of the fluid into the internal chamber.
Murray teaches pneumatic actuators comprise cylinders, valves, and pressures sources/blowers; 0046.
Note that it is well-known in the art that valves are used to control flow rates since they are known as flow control valves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a pneumatic actuator like those taught by Murray since they are known device, minus any unexpected results. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a valve in order to adjust the air flow which in turn would allow the air flow rate to be turned on or off or to simply control the air flow rate as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights