DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, specie A (claims 1-14, 16-18, 20) in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (2023/0307412A1) in view of Hwang et al. (8,104,666).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a method for bonding chips, comprising: initially positioning a first bonding head at a first predetermined location relative to an initial position of a substrate chuck, wherein the first bonding head holds a first chip and wherein the substrate chuck supports a bonding surface; alternating between receiving renewed position information of the substrate chuck and repositioning the first bonding head based on the received renewed position information until the first chip contacts the bonding surface (abstract, paragraph 0036).
Chang on only discloses one bond head. However, Hwang discloses an apparatus with multiple heads for bonding chips to a substrate (column 3 line 50 to column 4 line 6, figure 5-6). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use multiple heads within the process of Chang for bonding chips to a substrate because it allows for multiple components to be bonded at one time. This would cut down on production costs and time.
Regarding claim 2, since Hwang appears to show the heads 46 being applied at the same time it would necessarily flow that one would perform the process of alternating between receiving the renewed position information and the repositioning of the bonding heads at the same time. The timing would overlap. If the Applicant does not agree, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have them be performed at the same time to cut down on production time.
Regarding claim 3, Chang does not specifically state a duration of the first time period is different than a duration of the second time period. However, the duration is going to be dependent on the amount of alignment that needs to occur. There are only two options, the duration would be the same or the duration would be different. The probability that the alignment needed for the first and second would be different is high. Based on the only two limited options, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention that the duration of the first and second time periods would be different based on different orientation or alignment of each of the dies during the bonding process.
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses die bonding with pressure after the first chip contacts the bonding surface, actuating the bonding head to impart a first force on the first chip in a direction toward the bonding surface; and after the second chip contacts the bonding surface, actuating the second bonding head to impart a second force on the second chip in a direction toward the bonding surface (paragraphs 0044-0046). The initial pressure being applied to the chips by the die would be considered the first and second force. Therefore, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 10, since the first force (or second force) is not clearly defined, the first force (or second force) can be the initial contact of the chip to the surface. Therefore, the claim limitation is met.
Regarding claim 11, Hwang discloses a third head 46 (column 3 line 50 to column 4 line 6, figure 5-6). As previously stated, to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use multiple heads within the process of Chang for bonding chips to a substrate because it allows for multiple components to be bonded at one time. This would cut down on production costs and time.
Regarding claim 12, since Hwang appears to show the heads 46 being applied at the same time it would necessarily flow that one would perform the process of alternating between receiving the renewed position information and the repositioning of the bonding heads at the same time. The timing would overlap. If the Applicant does not agree, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have them be performed at the same time to cut down on production time.
Regarding claim 13, Chang (with Hwang) discloses die bonding with pressure after the first chip contacts the bonding surface, actuating the bonding head to impart a first force on the first chip in a direction toward the bonding surface; after the second chip contacts the bonding surface, actuating the second bonding head to impart a second force on the second chip in a direction toward the bonding surface; and after the third chip contacts the bonding surface, actuating the third bonding head to impart a third force on the second chip in a direction toward the bonding surface.
(paragraphs 0044-0046). The initial pressure being applied to the chips by the die would be considered the first and second and third force. Therefore, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 16, Chang states that the alignment is completed before placing the chip on the substrate or simultaneously while moving the chip toward the substrate. Therefore, it appears that the repositioning would be terminated upon the first chip contacting the bonding surface, terminating the repositioning of the first bonding head; and upon the second chip contacting the bonding surface, terminating the repositioning of the second bonding head (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 18, Chang discloses that the renewed position information includes one or more of renewed X position information, renewed Y position information, renewed tilt information, renewed rotation information, and renewed tip information (paragraph 0029).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (2023/0307412A1) in view of Hwang et al. (8,104,666) and Huang et al. (2020/0227379A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chang discloses a method of manufacturing a plurality of articles, comprising: initially positioning a first bonding head at a first predetermined location relative to an initial position of a substrate chuck, wherein the first bonding head holds a first chip and wherein the substrate chuck supports a substrate; alternating between receiving renewed position information of the substrate chuck and repositioning the first bonding head based on the received renewed position information until the first chip contacts the substrate; (abstract, paragraph 0036).
Chang discloses bonding multiple dies (paragraph 0002, 0084), but does not disclose a second bonding head initially positioning a second bonding head at a second predetermined location relative to the initial position of the substrate chuck, wherein the second bonding head holds a second chip; alternating between receiving renewed position information of the substrate chuck and repositioning the second bonding head based on the received renewed position information until the second chip contacts the substrate; bonding the first chip and the second chip to the substrate.
Chang does not disclose singulating the substrate to produce the plurality of articles. However, Huang discloses bonding dies to a carrier with a pick and place process and then singulating the carrier (paragraph 0022, figure 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to die bond multiple components to a single carrier and then singulate the components as this allow for a quick production of multiple components at the same time which would cut down on production costs and time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 14, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested after imparting the first force and the second force, simultaneously actuating the first bonding and the second bonding head such that the first bonding head imparts a third force on the first chip in the direction toward the bonding surface and the second bonding head imparts a fourth force on the second chip in the direction toward the bonding surface. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested after imparting the first force, the second force, and the third force, simultaneously actuating the first bonding, the second bonding head, and the third bonding head such that the first bonding head imparts a fourth force on the first chip in the direction toward the bonding surface, the second bonding head imparts a fifth force on the second chip in the direction toward the bonding surface, and the third bonding head imparts a sixth force on the third chip in the direction toward the bonding surface. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested after the first chip contacts bonding surface and before the second chip contacts the bonding surface, continuing to alternate between receiving renewed position information of the substrate chuck and repositioning the second bonding head based on the received renewed position information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights