DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/27/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 5, 19, 26 and 30 have been amended. Claims 1-4 and 14-18 are cancelled. Claims 5-13 and 19-30 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-18, filed 5/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5, 19 and 26 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that MOMENI nor NAGATA does not teach the newly amended limitations of “the physical window is an opening through the stage block; the second material provided within the opening; a top side of the physical window and a bottom side of the physical window are exposed from the stage block. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811).
The Applicant argues that WELKOWSKY is non-analogous art as it is unrelated to laser assisted bonding.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 5, 19 and 26. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “laser assisted bonding” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Furthermore, the Examiner would like to clarify that WELKOWSKY is being used for the materials of the substrate and the workpiece and not the bonding technique; therefore, WELKOSKY teaches the claimed limitation of claim 24 which recites: wherein the workpiece comprises silicon and the substrate comprises a non-silicon material.
The Applicant argues that RYU teaches the laser emission is not through a bottom side of a physical window.
The Examiner agrees RYU teaches the laser emission is from the top of the physical window; however, RYU teaches the concept of claim 25. Furthermore, MOMEMI teaches the laser emission is from the bottom side of a physical window and RYU is not being used for that concept. RYU also teaches resin can be attached to the bump [Col. 19, lines 40-46.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19-20, 22-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, in view of ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811).
Regarding claim 19, MOMENI teaches: A laser assisted bonding (LAB) tool (MOMENI teaches a laser assisted bonding tool [Fig. 1; Abstract].), comprising: a laser source (MOMENI teaches a laser source [Figs. 2-4].); and a stage block comprising a physical window over the laser source (MOMENI teaches a stage block (51) comprising a physical window (52) over the laser source, as MOMENI teaches the silicon cushion improves the quality of the contacting irrespective of the type of application of laser energy to the connected surfaces, indicating that a laser source is still in use with the stage block (51) [Col. 7, lines 25-35; Figs. 2-4].), wherein the stage block comprises a first material and the physical window comprises a second material different than the first material (MOMENI teaches the stage block (51) comprises a first material and the physical window comprises a second material different than the first material [Col. 7, lines 1-10; Figs. 2-4].), and wherein the stage block surrounds a perimeter of the physical window (MOMENI teaches the stage block (51) surrounds a perimeter of the physical window (52) [Fig. 3].); wherein: . . . ; the laser source is configured to direct a laser beam from the laser source to the physical window to apply a first heat on a workpiece supported by the stage block (MOMENI teaches a laser source that is configured to direct a laser beam from the laser source to the physical window [Figs. 1-4; Col. 7, lines 25-35].); the workpiece contacts a conductive structure of a substrate (MOMENI teaches a workpiece (61) contacts a conductive structure of a substrate [Figs. 2-4; Col. 7, lines 55-60].); the physical window is configured to support the workpiece and the substrate on the physical window (MOMENI teaches the physical window (52) is configured to support the workpiece (17) and the substrate (18) on the physical window [Fig. 3].); the substrate directly contacts the physical window during bonding without any intervening structure between the substrate and the physical window (MOMENI teaches the substrate directly contacts the physical window (52) without any intervening structure between [Fig. 3].); and a footprint of the physical window is as large or larger than a footprint of the workpiece (MOMENI teaches the footprint of the window is as large as the footprint of the workpiece (17) [Fig. 3].). The Examiner would like to clarify to the Applicant that the structure that is being examined of the LAB tool is: a stage block and a laser source. Many of the limitations claimed is in regards to the use of the apparatus and the material worked upon (substrate, interconnects, electronic component). Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that MOMENI discloses a stage block with a window, and a laser source positioned under the window as presently claimed, it is clear that the LAB tool of MOMENI would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. stage block supporting a substrate, substrate contacts the window, laser applies a first heat to the workpiece, the workpiece contacts a conductive structure of a substrate, and laser source bonds the electronic component to the substrate, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
MOMENI is silent as to: the physical window is an opening through the stage block, the second material provided within the opening; a top side of the physical window and a bottom side of the physical window are exposed from the stage block. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, ODA teaches a physical window with an opening through the stage block (13b) [Fig. 1; 0037]. ODA teaches the second material (13a) is provided within the opening [Fig. 1; 0038-0039]. ODA teaches a top side of the physical window and a bottom side of the physical window are exposed from the stage block [Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, by having the top side and the bottom side exposed, as suggested by ODA, in order to maintain airtightness [0039].
Regarding claim 20, MOMENI teaches: wherein: the substrate comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side (MOMENI teaches a substrate with a first side and a second side [Fig. 3]. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.); wherein the workpiece is over the first side of the substrate and contacts the conductive structure via an interconnect (MOMENI teaches the workpiece (17) is over the first side of the substrate (18) and contacts a conductive structure (61) via an interconnect [Figs. 2-4; Col. 7, lines 55-60]. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.); and wherein the laser source is configured to emit the laser beam to apply the first heat on the interconnect through the second side of the substrate (MOMENI teaches the laser source emits a laser beam to apply radiation through the second side of the substrate (18) [Figs. 2-4].).
Regarding claim 21, MOMENI teaches: wherein the physical window comprises a ceramic (MOMENI teaches a silicon material for the physical window is made from silicon, which can be a ceramic as evidenced by NAGATA [0069].). In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YAMAZAKI teaches a physical window (233) that is made of quartz [0080; Fig. 3]. It is inherent that a quartz material is a translucent, ceramic material, as evidenced by VALOUCH [Col. 39, lines 40-67].
Regarding claim 22, MOMENI teaches: wherein the physical window is configured to support the substrate (MOMENI teaches the physical window (52) is configured to support the substrate (18) [Fig. 3].).
Regarding claim 23, MOMENI teaches: wherein a footprint of the physical window is as large or larger than a footprint of the substrate (MOMENI teaches the footprint of the window is as large as the footprint of the substrate (18) [Fig. 3].).
Regarding claim 25, MOMENI teaches: wherein: the laser source is configured to direct the laser beam at the workpiece through a bottom side of the physical window from a direction below the workpiece and through the substrate without passing through the workpiece (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is directed at the metal interconnects through the bottom side of the window through the substrate (18) without passing through the workpiece (17) [Figs. 2-4]); and a first portion of the workpiece is maintained at a lower temperature than a temperature of a second portion of the workpiece when the first heat is applied to the second portion of the workpiece from the laser beam (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02.).
Claim(s) 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0330973), hereinafter YAMAZAKI.
Regarding claim 26, MOMENI teaches: A laser assisted bonding (LAB) tool (MOMENI teaches a laser assisted bonding tool [Fig. 1; Abstract]), comprising: a laser source (MOMENI teaches a laser source [Figs. 2-4].); and a stage block comprising a physical window over the laser source (MOMENI teaches a stage block (51) comprising a physical window (52) over the laser source, as MOMENI teaches the silicon cushion improves the quality of the contacting irrespective of the type of application of laser energy to the connected surfaces, indicating that a laser source is still in use with the stage block (51) [Col. 7, lines 25-35; Figs. 2-4].), the physical window configured to support a workpiece and a substrate (MOMENI teaches the physical window (52) supports a workpiece (17) and a substrate (18) [Fig. 3].), wherein the physical window comprises a ceramic; wherein: . . . ; the substrate comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side (MOMENI teaches the substrate has a first side and a second side [Fig. 3].); the workpiece is over the first side of the substrate and contacts a conductive structure of the substrate via an interconnect (MOMENI teaches the workpiece (17) is over the first side of the substrate (18) and contacts a conductive structure (61) via an interconnect [Fig. 4].); the laser source is configured to direct a laser beam from the laser source to the physical window to apply a first heat on the interconnect through the second side of the substrate (MOMENI teaches the laser source directs a laser beam from the laser source to the physical window, as MOMENI teaches the silicon cushion improves the quality of the contacting irrespective of the type of application of laser energy to the connected surfaces, indicating that a laser source is still in use with the stage block (51) [Col. 7, lines 25-35; Figs. 2-4].); the second side of the substrate directly contacts the physical window during bonding without any intervening structure between the substrate and the physical window (MOMENI teaches the second side of the substrate directly contacts the physical window during bonding without any intervening structure [Fig. 3].); and a footprint of the physical window is as large or larger than a footprint of the workpiece (MOMENI teaches the footprint of the window is as large as the footprint of the workpiece (17) [Fig. 3].). The Examiner would like to clarify to the Applicant that the structure that is being examined of the LAB tool is: a stage block and a laser source. Many of the limitations claimed is in regards to the use of the apparatus and the material worked upon (substrate, interconnects, electronic component). Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that MOMENI discloses a stage block with a window, and a laser source positioned under the window as presently claimed, it is clear that the LAB tool of MOMENI would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. stage block supporting a substrate, substrate contacts the window, laser applies a first heat to the workpiece, the workpiece contacts a conductive structure of a substrate, and laser source bonds the electronic component to the substrate, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
MOMENI is silent as to: the physical window is an opening through the stage block, the ceramic provided within the opening; a top side of the physical window and a bottom side of the physical window are exposed from the stage block. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, YAMAZAKI teaches a physical window (233) with an opening through the stage block (232) [Fig. 4; 0080]. YAMAZAKI teaches the quartz material (233) is provided within the opening [Fig. 4]. YAMAZAKI teaches a top side of the physical window and a bottom side of the physical window are exposed from the stage block (232) [Fig. 4]. YAMAZAKI teaches the window (233) is made from quartz [0080]. YAMAZAKI teaches ceramic as part of the window [0080]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, by having the top side and the bottom side exposed, as suggested by YAMAZAKI, in order to have high transmittance [0080].
Regarding claim 27, MOMENI teaches: wherein the workpiece comprises silicon and the substrate comprises a non-silicon material (MOMENI teaches a workpiece (17) and a substrate (18). Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Regarding claim 28, MOMENI teaches: wherein the footprint of the physical window is as large or larger than a footprint of the substrate (MOMENI teaches the footprint of the window is as large as the footprint of the substrate [Fig. 3].).
Regarding claim 29, MOMENI teaches: wherein the workpiece is an electronic component (MOMENI teaches the workpiece (17) is a chip [Col. 5, lines 1-2].).
Regarding claim 30, MOMENI teaches: wherein the physical window comprises: the top side that directly contacts the second side of the substrate (MOMENI teaches a first side of the window (52) that direction contacts the substrate (18) [Fig. 3].), and the bottom side, opposite the top side, the bottom side facing the laser source (MOMENI teaches the second side opposite the first side faces the laser source [Figs. 2-4].).
Claim(s) 5-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, in view of Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, and ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811).
Regarding claim 5, MOMENI teaches: A laser-assisted bonding (LAB) tool (MOMENI teaches a laser assisted bonding tool [Fig. 1; Abstract].), comprising: a stage block comprising a window (MOMENI teaches a stage block (51) that comprises a window (52) [Fig. 3].), wherein the window of the stage block comprise a first solid translucent material (MOMENI teaches the window (52) of the stage block is a first solid transparent material, a silicon cushion (52) [Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 5-7].), wherein the stage block comprises a second material different than the first solid translucent and wherein the stage block surrounds a perimeter of the window (MOMENI teaches the stage block (51) comprises a second material different than the first solid translucent material and it surrounds a perimeter of the window (52) [Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 1-3].); and a laser source configured to direct a laser beam through a bottom side of the window to bond an electronic component to a substrate (MOMENI teaches a laser source configured to direct a laser beam through a bottom side of the window, as MOMENI teaches the silicon cushion improves the quality of the contacting irrespective of the type of application of laser energy to the connected surfaces, indicating that a laser source is still in use with the stage block (50) [Col. 7, lines 25-35; Figs. 2-4].); wherein: . . . ; the stage block supports the window over the laser beam (MOMENI teaches the stage block (51) supports the window (52) over the laser as the stage block (51) can replace the stage block (14) [Figs. 2-4; Col. 6, lines 66-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-3].); the laser beam is directed at a metal interconnect between the electronic component and the substrate (MOMENI teaches the laser beam (28) is directed at a metal interconnect (23) between the electronic component (17) [Figs. 2-4; Col. 1-12].); a top side of the window is configured to support the substrate during bonding (MOMENI teaches the window (52) supports the substrate (18) on the top side [Fig. 3; Col. 7, lines 21-35].); the substrate directly contacts the top side of the window during bonding without any intervening structure between the substrate and the top side of the window (MOMENI teaches the substrate direct contacts the top side of the window [Fig. 3].); and wherein a footprint of the window is as large or larger than a footprint of the substrate (MOMENI teaches the footprint of the window is as large as the footprint of the substrate [Fig. 3].). The Examiner would like to clarify to the Applicant that the structure that is being examined of the LAB tool is: a stage block and a laser source. Many of the limitations claimed is in regards to the use of the apparatus and the material worked upon (substrate, interconnects, electronic component). Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that MOMENI discloses a stage block with a window and a laser source positioned under the window as presently claimed, it is clear that the LAB tool of MOMENI would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. stage block supporting a substrate, substrate contacts the window, and laser source bonds the electronic component to the substrate, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
MOMENI does not teach that the window (52) in the stage block is translucent. In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YORITA teaches that the silicon base is translucent [0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI with a translucent silicon, as suggested by YORITA, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
MOMENI and YORITA are silent as to: the window is an opening through the stage block, the first solid translucent material provided within the opening; a top side of the window and the bottom side of the window are exposed from the stage block. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, ODA teaches a physical window with an opening through the stage block (13b) [Fig. 1; 0037]. ODA teaches the second material (13a) is provided within the opening [Fig. 1; 0038-0039]. ODA teaches a top side of the physical window and a bottom side of the physical window are exposed from the stage block [Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and YORITA, by having the top side and the bottom side exposed, as suggested by ODA, in order to maintain airtightness [0039].
Regarding claim 6, MOMENI teaches: wherein the metal interconnect is heated until the metal interconnect is bonded with a conductive structure of the substrate (MOMENI teaches the metal interconnect is heated until the metal interconnect is bonded with a conductive structure (61) [Figs. 2-4; Col. 7, lines 55-60]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Regarding claim 7, MOMENI teaches: wherein a greater amount of heat is applied to the metal interconnect than to the electronic component during bonding (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02.).
Regarding claim 8, MOMENI teaches: wherein a greater amount of heat is applied to the metal interconnect than to the substrate during bonding (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02.).
Regarding claim 9, MOMENI teaches: wherein the laser beam is directed at the metal interconnect through the bottom side of the window and through the substrate without passing through the electronic component (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is directed at the metal interconnects through the bottom side of the window through the substrate (18) without passing through the electronic component (17) [Figs. 2-4].).
Regarding claim 12, MOMENI teaches: wherein the electronic component is over a first side of the substrate (MOMENI teaches the electronic component (17) is over a first side of the substrate (18) [Figs. 2-4]. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.), and the laser beam is applied to the metal interconnect from a second side of the substrate opposite to the first side (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is applied to the metal interconnect from a second side of the substrate (18) opposite to the first side [Figs. 2-4].).
Regarding claim 13, MOMENI teaches: wherein a greater amount of heat is applied to the metal interconnect than to a mold compound adjacent to the electronic component and directly adjacent to the metal interconnect during heating (MOMENI teaches the laser beam is used for soldering and for producing a thermal compression connection [Col. 7, lines 66-67 – Col. 8, lines 7]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is towards the material worked upon and the intended use of the laser; therefore, the tool of MOMENI is capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2111.02.).
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of ALIEV et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0339741), hereinafter ALIEV.
Regarding claim 21, MOMENI and ODA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including that the topical window (13a) can be made of material that is not limited to glass, provided that the material transmits light having a desired wavelength [ODA: 0038]. MOMENI and ODA do not explicitly teach: wherein the physical window comprises a ceramic. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, ALIEV teaches a material transparent to a laser beam that can be made from glass or transparent ceramic [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and ODA, by having a transparent ceramic, as suggested by ALIEV, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 24, MOMENI teaches: wherein the workpiece comprises silicon and the substrate comprises a non-silicon material (MOMENI teaches a workpiece (17) and a substrate (18). Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0330973), hereinafter YAMAZAKI.
Regarding claim 21, MOMENI and ODA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including that the topical window (13a) can be made of material that is not limited to glass, provided that the material transmits light having a desired wavelength [ODA: 0038], but do not explicitly teach: wherein the physical window comprises a ceramic. In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YAMAZAKI teaches: wherein the physical window comprises a ceramic (YAMAZAKI teaches a physical window (233) that is made of quartz [0080; Fig. 3]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and ODA, by having the window be made of quartz, as suggested by YAMAZAKI, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 24, MOMENI teaches: wherein the workpiece comprises silicon and the substrate comprises a non-silicon material (MOMENI teaches a workpiece (17) and a substrate (18). Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (substrate, interconnects, workpiece, electronic component, conductive structure) by a structure (LAB tool) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811), and ALIEV et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0339741), hereinafter ALIEV, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Welkowsky et al. (U.S. 5,160,560), hereinafter WELKOWSKY.
Regarding claim 24, MOMENI, ODA and ALIEV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, electronics, WELKOWSKY teaches the workpiece is a silicon wafer and the substrate is made of glass [Col. 3, lines 22-25; Col. 3, lines 60-63]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, ODA and ALIEV, by having a silicon wafer and a glass substrate, as suggested WELKOWSKY, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, and ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0049381), hereinafter RYU.
Regarding claim 25, MOMENI and ODA teach all of the claimed limitations above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding/semiconductors, RYU teaches a plurality of laser beams may be directed to a single die (e.g., at locations of the die corresponding to respective groups of bumps and/or individual respective bumps) [0035]. RYU teaches providing a means for having the irradiation supplied in a localized manner and teaches the laser beam (130) is directed at the metal interconnect (111) and through the substrate (110) without passing through the electronic component (120) [Fig. 2B]. RYU also teaches laser beams being emitted at different energy levels to create localized temperature gradients [0036-0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI and ODA, by having irradiation supplied in a localized manner and having different energy levels to created localized temperature gradients, as suggested by RYU, in order to reflow the metal interconnects (bumps) and create an electrical connection [0013], and thermal expansion and/or shrinkage occurring to the entire region of the electronic component can be minimized [0037].
Claim(s) 7-8, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, and ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fujimoto et al. (U.S. 5,829,125), hereinafter FUJIMOTO.
Regarding claim 7, MOMENI, YORITA and ODA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding tools, FUJIMOTO teaches during laser beam irradiation, the component can be cooled which can readily prevent the component body from being heated due to laser beam irradiation [Col. 4, lines 43-49]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, YORITA and ODA, by having greater amount of heat applied to the connection (6) than the component, as suggested by FUJIMOTO, in order to easily prevent the component body from being heated at the laser beam irradiation [Col. 4, lines 43-49].
Regarding claim 8, MOMENI, YORITA and ODA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding tools, FUJIMOTO further teaches: wherein a greater amount of heat is applied to the metal interconnect than to the substrate during bonding (FUJIMOTO teaches to prevent the local heat generation occurring in the substrate (3) itself at the laser beam irradiation, it is preferable to enlarge the illumination angle of the laser beam to the utmost by enhancing the magnification of a condenser lens. In addition, the illuminating area is shifted from the lower surface of the conductor to under the lower surface of the substrate [Col. 4, lines 15-25]. FUJIMOTO teaches the connecting material (6) is heated and melt by the laser beam (7) passing through the substrate (3) to accomplish the connection between the external electrode (2) and the conductor (4), and hence there is no application of the thermal and mechanical stresses to both the component (1) and substrate (3) at the connection, which can prevent the deterioration of the component quality and the performance resulting from these stresses [Col. 4, lines 25-33]). [col. 4, lines 50-56].
Regarding claim 10, MOMENI, YORITA and ODA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the laser beam has a depth of field (DOF) and the metal interconnect is in the DOF when heated. In the same field of endeavor, bonding tools, FUJIMOTO teaches: wherein the laser beam has a depth of field (DOF) and the metal interconnect is in the DOF when heated (FUJIMOTO teaches the depth of field of the laser beam (7) is made to coincide with the conductor (4) and the connecting material (6) [Col. 4, lines 15-25]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, YORITA and ODA, by the laser beam having a depth of field, as suggested by FUJIMOTO, in order to prevent the deterioration of the component quality and the performance resulting from these stresses [Col. 4, lines 25-33]). [col. 4, lines 50-56].
Regarding claim 13, FUJIMOTO further teaches: wherein a greater amount of heat is applied to the metal interconnect than to a mold compound adjacent to the electronic component and directly adjacent to the metal interconnect during heating (FUJIMOTO teaches the connecting material (6) is heated and melt by the laser beam (7) passing through the substrate (3) to accomplish the connection between the external electrode (2) and the conductor (4), and hence there is no application of the thermal and mechanical stresses to both the component (1) and substrate (3) at the connection, which can prevent the deterioration of the component quality and the performance resulting from these stresses, indicating that the heat applied to the connection is greater than its surroundings [Col. 4, lines 25-33]. The Examiner is interpreting the bumps (5) as molding compounds, which have a higher melting point than the connecting material (6) [Col. 3, lines 49-51; Col. 19, lines 40-47]. FUJIMOTO teaches the connecting material (6) melts, but the bumps (5) do not [Figs. 3-18; Col. 4, lines 9-12].).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momeni (U.S. 6,394,158), hereinafter MOMENI, Yorita et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0088050), hereinafter YORITA, and ODA (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0227811) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0330973), hereinafter YAMAZAKI.
Regarding claim 11, MOMENI, YORITA and ODA teach all of the claimed limitations, but are silent as to: wherein the window comprises quartz. In the same field of endeavor, laser bonding, YAMAZAKI teaches a physical window (233) that is made of quartz [0080; Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MOMENI, YORITA and ODA, by having the window be made of quartz, as suggested by YAMAZAKI, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights