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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 4/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Specification
The objection to the specification is overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are maintained, as it is still unclear whether the “horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the first surface” is intended to be the direction in which the light is incident on the first surface or the direction in which the light is polarized.
Claim Interpretation
Due to amendment, interpretation of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is no longer required and is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s first argument is that Fujita does not teach the polarization beam splitter comprising a first prism and a second prism, however, this argument is not persuasive. Polarization beam splitter 3c is shown in FIG. 8 as comprising two triangular pieces, each of which is a prism.
Applicant’s second argument is that light is not totally reflected inside the first prism or the second prism, however, this argument is not persuasive. As the polarizing surface of polarization beam splitter 3c is on the shared surface between both prisms that comprise the polarization beam splitter 3c, each prism is configured to totally reflect the particular polarization that the polarization beam splitter 3c is configured to reflect, and the reflection is internal to that prism.
Applicant’s third argument is that Fujita explicitly and consistently teaches sequential capture throughout all embodiments, however, this argument is not persuasive. In particular, it appears that the first, second, and sixth exemplary embodiments use simultaneous imaging, while only the third, fourth, seventh, eighth, and ninth exemplary embodiments teach sequential imaging, with the fifth exemplary embodiment giving options of either approach, and the paragraphs cited as showing Fujita as “fundamentally designed” for sequential capture are each preceded by a paragraph stating that, in the embodiment in question, the steps S2 (image component) and S3 (calculate position correction amount) are different. This action relies on the sixth exemplary embodiment, shown in FIG. 8, which does not rely on sequential imaging and does not use the “different” form of steps S2 and S3. It may be noted that embodiments that use simultaneous imaging are only described by Fujita as generating camera images A, while the sequential imaging techniques generate images A1 and A2 (in other words, A1 and A2 are only referred to in certain embodiments, the ones using sequential imaging). In particular, the images A are made by synthesizing the light in light synthesis unit 3 rather than in a post-processing technique (such as combining images A1 and A2). Finally, the mechanical and electric shutters referenced by Applicant do not belong to the embodiment relied on in this action.
As the independent claims are not allowed, the dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
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 and 4-10 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 “a polarizing prism configured to polarize the light incident on a first surface of the polarizing prism in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the first surface”. It is ambiguous as to whether the polarizing prism is configured to polarize the light in the horizontal direction and orthogonal to the first surface (which would raise further questions of how the light would be both incident on the first surface and polarized orthogonal to the first surface) or if the light is incident on the first surface in the horizontal direction that is orthogonal to that first surface. In light of the specification and drawings, the latter interpretation is adopted, that the light hits the first surface orthogonally while going in the horizontal direction and that the direction of polarization is not specified. Amending the above-quoted recitation to “a polarizing prism configured to polarize the light, wherein the light is incident on a first surface of the polarizing prism in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the first surface” is an example of how the issue may be resolved without changing the scope of the claim from the interpretation currently adopted.
Claims 4-10 are indefinite for depending on at least one indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US patent publication US 20250140736).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita teaches a die bonding system comprising:
a first stage having a first adsorbing surface, the first stage being configured to adsorb a wafer on the first adsorbing surface (FIG. 8, stage 6 holding second component P2);
a second stage having a second adsorbing surface facing the first adsorbing surface in a vertical direction, the second stage being configured to adsorb a die on the second adsorbing surface (FIG. 8, bonding head 5, holding first component P1 vertically above second component P2);
a first driver configured to move at least one of the first stage and the second stage (moving mechanism described in paragraph 30); and
an optical device configured to:
simultaneously capture a first alignment mark of the wafer and a second alignment mark of the die (FIG. 8, polarization camera 1a, which captures the positions of alignment marks M1 and M2 in images A (shown in FIG. 3 (a) and described in paragraph 34). Regarding simultaneous capture, note the sixth exemplary embodiment (paragraph 60 et seq.) is one of the embodiments that uses an unmodified version of steps S2 and S3 (i.e., the simultaneous version). In contrast, paragraphs 69-70 characterize the seventh exemplary embodiment as using a different form of steps S2 and S3 (i.e., the sequential version). While paragraphs 62 and 65 describe polarization camera 1a as producing image A for each of the components, the imaging is not characterized as sequential (consider a common digital camera which captures a red image a green image, and a blue image simultaneously), unlike in the seventh, eighth, and ninth exemplary embodiments), and
detect information about a relative position between the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (FIG. 3, marks M1, M2, described in paragraph 34 and shown in FIG. 3(a)),
wherein the optical device comprises:
a light source configured to emit light (FIG. 8, coaxial illumination 11);
a photodetector configured to detect reflected light generated when the light is reflected from the wafer and the die; and
a polarizer configured to polarize the light and the reflected light (FIG. 8, polarization beam splitter 3c, described starting in paragraph 60),
wherein the optical device is configured to be movable between the first stage and the second stage in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the vertical direction (paragraph 30, advancing and retracting to avoid collision),
wherein the optical device further comprises an optical head having a symmetrical structure (FIG. 8, light synthesis unit 3, which has oblique light illumination 12a and 12b, structures which are shown as symmetric within each pair and symmetric one pair with the other),
wherein first reflected light reflected from the first alignment mark propagates along a first optical path of the optical head (when light, such as the light reflected from the alignment mark on second component P2 in FIG. 8 of Fujita, propagates, it inherently does so along an optical path. Also see paragraph 64),
wherein second reflected light reflected from the second alignment mark propagates along a second optical path of the optical head (when light, such as the light reflected from the alignment mark on first component P1 in FIG. 8 of Fujita, propagates, it inherently does so along an optical path. Also see paragraph 63.), and
While Fujita does not explicitly state that a length of the first optical path is equal to a length of the second optical path, Fujita does teach that lens 2 in FIG. 8 is used to image both the first and second components, suggesting that both are in focus, which is easier to achieve with matching optical paths.
Further, mere rearrangement of parts is generally insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C), and neither the claimed invention nor the present disclosure appears to be relying on equal or nearly equal optical path lengths to obtain special results (the disclosure is not for something like a low-coherence interferometer, for example), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the die bonding system of Fujita with equal optical path lengths merely by rearranging parts to aid in simultaneously focusing the camera on both components, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 11 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the photodetector is further configured to obtain a first image of the first alignment mark from the first reflected light reflected and a second image of the second alignment mark from the second reflected light reflected (paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 17, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 11 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the optical device is further configured to move the optical device to a measurement position between the first stage and the second stage or a standby position outside the first stage and the second stage (paragraph 30, advancing and retracting the optical components to avoid collisions during bonding).
While Fujita states that the optical system “moves” and not that a person moves it by hand, Fujita is not explicit that the device comprises a second driver to perform that motion, though one of ordinary skill in the art would likely have inferred that there is a driver that performs the motion. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have built the die bonding system of Fujita with a driver to move the optical system as described in paragraph 30 rather than doing so, for example, by hand, achieving the predictable result of the optical system moving.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US patent publication US 20250140736) in view of Kasai (foreign patent document JP 2005164322 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a die bonding system (FIG. 8, positioning equipment 100) comprising:
an optical device comprising: a light source configured to emit light (FIG. 8, coaxial illumination 11);
a polarizing prism configured to polarize the light (FIG. 8, polarization beam splitter 3c) incident on a first surface (FIG. 8, the face of polarization beam splitter facing the -Y direction) of the polarizing prism in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the first surface (FIG. 8, the light enters while travelling in the +Y direction, orthogonal to the first surface);
a first reflector and a second reflector, each of the first reflector and the second reflector being configured to reflect the light output from the polarizing prism (FIG. 8, mirror 3b reflects the rest of the light output by polarization beam splitter 3c and serves as a second reflector);
wherein the polarizing prism (FIG. 8, polarization beam splitter 3c) comprises:
a first prism (FIG. 8, polarization beam splitter 3c, the upper triangle), and
a second prism adjacent to the first prism (FIG. 8, polarization beam splitter 3c, the lower triangle),
wherein the first prism and the second prism provide a splitter surface configured to split the light into first light and second light (FIG. 8, the interface between the prisms of polarization beam splitter 3c),
wherein the first prism is configured to totally reflect the first light reflected from the splitter surface inside the first prism (FIG. 8, light of a particular polarization is reflected at the splitter surface inside the first prism as the first light. Since the first light is defined as the portion reflected by the polarization beam splitter, it is necessarily the case that the reflected portion is totally reflected.), and
wherein the second prism is configured to totally reflect the second light that passes through the splitter surface (FIG. 8, light of a polarization state orthogonal to that of the reflected light passes through the splitter surface) inside the second prism (FIG. 8, the second light is reflected from the other side of the splitter surface (i.e., inside the second prism) on its way from mirror 3b to the target and on its way back from the target), and output the totally reflected second light to the second reflector (FIG. 8, the second light is sent to mirror 3b after passing through the splitter surface and after returning from the target).
Fujita arranges the polarization beam splitter between the targets rather than placing it to the side and using a separate device to redirect the polarized beams and achieves focusing by using lens 2 to focus the light as it goes into light synthesis unit 3 and as it returns, so does not explicitly teach a first reflector configured to reflect output light from the polarizing prism, nor individual lenses for each of the two paths for the two detection targets, so does not separately teach a first lens configured to condense the light reflected by the first reflector; a second lens configured to condense the light reflected by the second reflector; and that the first prism is configured to output the totally reflected first light to the first reflector.
In the same field of endeavor of optically detecting multiple measurement positions, Kasai does teach a first reflector configured to reflect output light from the polarizing prism (FIG. 9, mirrors 13 direct the split light to the targets and mirrors 22 that direct reflected light away from the targets) and a first lens configured to condense the light reflected by the first reflector (FIG. 9, first condenser lens 16, shown inside one of the instances of measurement optical system 10); and a second lens configured to condense the light reflected by the second reflector (FIG. 9, first condenser lens 16, inside of the other instance of measurement optical system 10) and that the first prism is configured to output the totally reflected first light to the first reflector (FIG. 9, mirrors 22 are downstream of the polarizing beam splitters). By using additional mirrors, before light interacts with the measurement targets and after, Kasai is able to manipulate the light onto and from the two measurement targets after it has been split, allowing for more flexibility in designing the beam paths and by using separate condenser lenses for the two measurement sites, Kasai is able to tune the focus of the illumination separately for the two beam paths after they are split from each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the die bonding system of Fujita with the separate mirrors and lenses of Kasai in order to rearrange the beam path to a more convenient shape and be able to separately tune the focus of the two measurement targets and condense the light and focus the imaging system on the desired regions of the die and wafer.
Regarding claim 4, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 1 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the polarizing prism is further configured to linearly polarize the light incident on the polarizing prism in the horizontal direction (paragraph 61, S-polarized light and P-polarized light are both linearly polarized).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the optical device of claim 1 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the polarizing prism is further configured to allow p-polarization to pass through a splitter surface of the polarizing prism and s-polarization to be reflected by the splitter surface (paragraph 63 describes this arrangement).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 1 (as described above).
Fujita does not explicitly teach a first phase retarder adjacent to the first reflector, and that the light is incident on the first phase retarder.
In the same field of endeavor of optically detecting multiple measurement positions Kasai does teach a first phase retarder adjacent to the first reflector, and that the light is incident on the first phase retarder (FIG. 9, quarter wave plate 21, which appears in both copies of measurement optical system 10). By having similar parts, including wave plates, measuring both targets, Kasai is able to avoid errors introduced by having the two optical paths be different or use different sets of components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the die bonding system of Fujita, as modified by Kasai, with wave plates in both of the optical paths to reduce the risk of errors in relative position as measured by the device caused by differences between the optical components.
Regarding claim 7, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 6 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the second phase retarder is configured to circularly polarize the light (a quarter waveplate, like the one used by Fujita, circularly polarizes the linearly polarized light that goes through it. Also see paragraph 64).
The first phase retarder is taught by Kasai rather than Fujita, so it is Kasai that teaches that the first phase retarder is configured to circularly polarize the light (FIG. 9, quarter waveplate 21 is also a quarter waveplate, so also circularly polarizes the light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the die bonding system of Fujita, as modified by Kasai, using a quarter waveplate as the additional phase retarder as Kasai while adding that component, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 1 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the first alignment mark is spaced apart from and faces the second alignment mark in a vertical direction that is orthogonal to the horizontal direction (FIG. 3, alignment marks M1, M2).
Fujita uses the polarization beam splitter 3c to direct the light to the two alignment marks, so does not teach a separate folding mirror unit configured to:
radiate the light from the first lens to a first alignment mark, and
radiate the light from the second lens to a second alignment mark,
In the same field of endeavor of optically detecting multiple measurement positions Kasai does teach a mirror unit configured to:
radiate the light from the first lens to a first alignment mark, and
radiate the light from the second lens to a second alignment mark (FIG. 9, mirrors 13 direct the split light to the targets (stylus reflectors 18 in the case of Kasai) and mirrors 22 that direct reflected light away from the targets). By using additional mirrors, Kasai is able to manipulate the light onto the two measurement targets after it has been split, allowing for more flexibility in designing the beam paths.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the die bonding system of Fujita, as modified by Kasai, with additional mirrors like those of Kasai to make it easier to plan the beam paths to and from the two targets.
Regarding claim 9, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 8 (as described above).
Fujita does not teach the folding mirror unit as a separate component (as described above), so does not explicitly teach that it comprises:
a first reflective surface configured to reflect first reflected light reflected from the first alignment mark, and
a second reflective surface configured to reflect second reflected light reflected from the second alignment mark, and
wherein the first reflected light and the second reflected light are output in opposite horizontal directions orthogonal to the vertical direction.
Kasai further teaches that the folding mirror unit comprises:
a first reflective surface configured to reflect first reflected light reflected from the first alignment mark (FIG. 9, mirrors 22 associated with one of the copies of measurement optical system 10, which direct light returning from stylus reflectors 18), and
a second reflective surface configured to reflect second reflected light reflected from the second alignment mark (FIG. 9, mirrors 22 associated with the other copy of measurement optical system 10, which direct light returning from stylus reflectors 18), and
wherein the first reflected light and the second reflected light are output in opposite horizontal directions orthogonal to the vertical direction (FIG. 9, beams exiting the two copies of measurement optical system 10 do so in opposite directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device of Fujita, as modified by Kasai, to reflect the output light using mirrors like those of Kasai to guide the light to where it will be detected with the predictable result of redirecting the light as desired.
Regarding claim 10, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 9 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches a photodetector configured to detect the first reflected light and the second reflected light (FIG. 8, camera 1a), each of the first reflected light and the second reflected light being output from a second surface of the polarizing prism (FIG. 8, the reflected lights are emitted from both the surface that polarization beam splitter 3c uses to split light according to polarization as well as by the surface closest to camera 1a).
Regarding claim 12, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 11 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the optical device further comprises:
a polarizing prism configured to linearly polarize the light incident on a first surface of the polarizing prism in the horizontal direction (FIG. 8, polarization beam splitter 3c); and
a second phase retarder, the second phase retarder being configured to polarize and retard the light or the reflected light reflected from one of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (FIG. 8, quarter wave plate 3d).
Fujita does not explicitly teach a first phase retarder configured to polarize and retard the light or the reflected light reflected from one of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark.
In the same field of endeavor of optically detecting multiple measurement positions Kasai does teach a first phase retarder configured to polarize and retard the light or the reflected light reflected from one of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (FIG. 9, waveplate 21). By having similar parts, including wave plates, measuring both targets, Kasai is able to avoid errors introduced by having the two optical paths be different or use different sets of components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the die bonding system of Fujita with the teachings of Kasai with wave plates in both of the optical paths to reduce the risk of errors in relative position as measured by the device caused by differences between the optical components.
Regarding claim 13, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 12 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the reflected light comprises first reflected light and second reflected light,
wherein the second phase retarder is configured to s-polarize the second reflected light reflected from the second alignment mark as s-polarized second reflected light (paragraph 61 describes polarization beam splitter 3c as transmitting S-polarized light, so to be transmitted from mirror 3b to camera 1a, quarter waveplate 3d would need to transform the reflected light back into an S-polarized state).
Fujita does not explicitly teach two waveplates, so does not explicitly teach that the first phase retarder is configured to p-polarize the first reflected light reflected from the first alignment mark as p-polarized first reflected light.
In the same field of endeavor of optically detecting multiple measurement positions Kasai does teach that the first phase retarder is configured to polarize the first reflected light reflected from the first alignment mark as polarized first reflected light (FIG. 9, light reflected from the target has its polarization state changed by third quarter waveplate 21). By using waveplates, Kasai is able to switch whether the light is reflected or transmitted by polarizing beam splitter 17 and better control the light as a result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the die bonding system of Fujita, as modified by Kasai, with wave plates in both of the optical paths to better manipulate the polarization states of light.
While Kasai describes L1, the light applied to the object being measured, as being P-polarized when being transmitted through polarizing beam splitter 17 and S-polarized by quarter wave plate 21, there is no particular reason to prefer that arrangement over switching the polarization states of L0 and L1 by changing which is transmitted and which is reflected by polarizing beam splitter 17, which would make quarter waveplate 21 P-polarize the reflected light that it receives from the measurement target. Additionally, making that change would assist in combining the teachings of Kasai into the teachings of Fujita, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bonding system of Fujita, as modified by Kasai, in such a way that the first phase retarder induces specifically p-polarization in the reflected light it processes.
Regarding claim 14, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 13 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the polarizing prism is further configured to transmit the p-polarized first reflected light and reflect the s-polarized second reflected light (paragraph 63 describes such an arrangement).
Regarding claim 18, Fujita teaches a die bonding system comprising:
a first stage having a first adsorbing surface, the first stage being configured to adsorb a wafer on the first adsorbing surface (FIG. 8, stage 6 holding second component P2);
a second stage having a second adsorbing surface facing the first adsorbing surface in a vertical direction, the second stage being configured to adsorb a die on the second adsorbing surface (FIG. 8, bonding head 5, holding first component P1 vertically above second component P2);
a first driver configured to move at least one of the first stage and the second stage (moving mechanism described in paragraph 30); and
an optical device configured to:
simultaneously capture a first alignment mark of the wafer and a second alignment mark of the die (FIG. 8, polarization camera 1a, which captures the positions of alignment marks M1 and M2 in images A (shown in FIG. 3 (a) and described in paragraph 34). Regarding simultaneous capture, note the sixth exemplary embodiment (paragraph 60 et seq.) is one of the embodiments that uses an unmodified version of steps S2 and S3 (i.e., the simultaneous version). In contrast, paragraphs 69-70 characterize the seventh exemplary embodiment as using a different form of steps S2 and S3 (i.e., the sequential version). While paragraphs 62 and 65 describe polarization camera 1a as producing image A for each of the components, the imaging is not characterized as sequential (consider a common digital camera which captures a red image a green image, and a blue image simultaneously), unlike in the seventh, eighth, and ninth exemplary embodiments), and
detect information about a relative position between the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (FIG. 3, marks M1, M2, described in paragraph 34 and shown in FIG. 3(a)),
wherein the optical device comprises:
a polarizing prism (FIG. 8, polarization beam splitter 3c) configured to split light into first light with s-polarization and second light with p-polarization (paragraph 61, the light being incident on a first surface (FIG. 8, the face of polarization beam splitter facing the -Y direction), the light being incident on a first surface of the polarizing prism in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the vertical direction (FIG. 8, the light enters while travelling in the +Y direction, orthogonal to the first surface); and
a second phase retarder, configured to polarize and retard the light or reflected light reflected from one of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (FIG. 8, quarter wave plate 3d that changes the polarization state of light and reflected light), and
wherein the optical device is configured to be movable between the first stage and the second stage in the horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the vertical direction (paragraph 30, advancing and retracting to avoid collision).
wherein the optical device further comprises an optical head including the polarizing prism and the second phase retarder arranged in a symmetrical structure (FIG. 8, light synthesis unit 3 includes both polarization beam splitter 3c and quarter waveplate 3d, which are in a structure that symmetrically emits light to measure both alignment marks above and below the light synthesis unit 3. Note that being arranged in a symmetrical structure is a very broad limitation on what kind of structure, which parts have symmetry, the nature of that symmetry, etc.),
wherein first reflected light reflected from the first alignment mark propagates along a first optical path of the optical head (when light, such as the light reflected from the alignment mark on second component P2 in FIG. 8 of Fujita, propagates, it inherently does so along an optical path. Also see paragraph 64),
wherein second reflected light reflected from the second alignment mark propagates along a second optical path of the optical head (when light, such as the light reflected from the alignment mark on first component P1 in FIG. 8 of Fujita, propagates, it inherently does so along an optical path. Also see paragraph 63.), and
While Fujita does not explicitly state that a length of the first optical path is equal to a length of the second optical path, Fujita does teach that lens 2 in FIG. 8 is used to image both the first and second components, suggesting that both are in focus, which is easier to achieve with matching optical paths.
Further, mere rearrangement of parts is generally insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C), and neither the claimed invention nor the present disclosure appears to be relying on equal or nearly equal optical path lengths to obtain special results (the disclosure is not for something like a low-coherence interferometer, for example), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the die bonding system of Fujita with equal optical path lengths merely by rearranging parts to aid in simultaneously focusing the camera on both components, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Fujita does not explicitly teach a first phase retarder configured to polarize and retard the light or reflected light reflected from one of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark and arranged in an optical head.
In the same field of endeavor of optically detecting multiple measurement positions Kasai does teach a first phase retarder configured to polarize and retard the light or reflected light reflected from one of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark and arranged in an optical head (FIG. 9, quarter wave plate 21, which appears in both copies of measurement optical system 10, which are arranged symmetrically). By having similar parts, including wave plates, measuring both targets, Kasai is able to avoid errors introduced by having the two optical paths be different or use different sets of components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the die bonding system of Fujita with wave plates in both of the optical paths to reduce the risk of errors in relative position as measured by the device caused by differences between the optical components.
Regarding claim 19, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 18 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the first driver is further configured to rotate or move at least one of the first stage and the second stage based on the information about the relative position (paragraph 30, movement in a θ or an XY direction).
Regarding claim 20, Fujita, as modified by Kasai, teaches or renders obvious the die bonding system of claim 18 (as described above).
Fujita further teaches that the device is configured to move the optical device to a measurement position between the first stage and the second stage or a standby position outside the first stage and the second stage (paragraph 30, advancing and retracting),
wherein, after the at least one of the first stage and the second stage is moved by the first driver, the device is further configured to move the optical device from the measurement position to the standby position (paragraph 30, retracting so that bonding head 5 does not collide with the optical system).
While Fujita states that the optical system “moves” and not that a person moves it by hand, Fujita is not explicit that the device comprises a second driver to perform that motion, though one of ordinary skill in the art would likely have inferred that there is a driver that performs the motion. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have built the die bonding system of Fujita with a driver to move the optical system as described in paragraph 30 rather than doing so, for example, by hand, achieving the predictable result of the optical system moving.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Publications 20230094985 and 20230392925, which have effectively filed dates before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and inventorship that is not identical to that of the instant application, qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), but list the same Applicant as the instant application and have overlapping inventors. The status as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights