DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species 2 in the reply filed on 4/1/26 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)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither teaches nor suggests the edge support is in contact with the semiconductor wafer when the hard plate and the edge support move towards the semiconductor wafer.
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) 9-16 and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyama et al., US 11,393,700.
Regarding claim 9, Seyama (figures 1 & 3) teaches a bonding tool for bonding semiconductor dies 102 to a substrate 101, the bonding tool comprising:
a hard plate 20/36/31/32 movably disposed over the semiconductor dies 102 (column 3, lines 45-47 teaches plural dies mounted on one mounting region);
an edge support 35B/38B disposed on a bottom surface of the hard plate 20/36/31/32, the edge support 35B/38B comprising a feed-in 35B and a feed-out 38B; and
a buffer layer 200 penetrating through the feed-in 35B and the feed-out 38B such that the buffer layer 200 is fed between the hard plate 20/36/31/32 and the semiconductor dies 102, wherein the buffer layer 200 is in contact with the semiconductor dies 102 and the hard plate 20/36/31/32 when the hard plate 20/36/31/32 and the edge support 35B/38B move towards the substrate 101.
Seyama fails to teach the substrate 101 is a wafer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a wafer in place of the substrate (column 3, lines 26-33) teaches organic or inorganic substrates) in the invention of Seyama because a wafer is a known equivalent substrate. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). A skilled artisan knows the substrate to which dies are mounted are interchangeable depending upon the desired use of the mounted die.
Seyama fails to specifically teach the feed-in and feed-out are, or have channels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a channel, such as a groove, in the edge support 35B/38B in the invention of Seyama because a channel would prevent the buffer layer from sliding off, or slipping out of position, of the edge supports 35B/38B. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 10, Seyama (figure 1) teaches a wafer chuck 4, wherein the wafer chuck 4 carries the semiconductor wafer 101 and the semiconductor dies 102 placed on the semiconductor wafer 101.
As to claim 11, though Seyama fails to teach the wafer chuck 4 comprises a circular- shaped chuck, and the hard plate comprises a circular-shaped hard plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a circular chuck and hard plate in the invention of Seyama because changes in size, shape or proportion are within the ordinary level of skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
In re claim 12, though Seyama fails to teach the edge support 35B/38B is disposed between the hard plate and the semiconductor wafer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Seyama because the relative position is a known equivalent location for the edge support. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Concerning claim 14, though Seyama fails to teach the edge support comprises a ring- shaped support structure, and the hard plate comprises a circular-shaped hard plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a ring- shaped support structure and the hard plate being circular in the invention of Seyama because a support structure is conventionally known and used in the art to contact the edge support to the hard plate and to steady it. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use ring shaped an circular in the invention of Seyama because changes in shape are within the ordinary level of skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Pertaining to claim 15, though Seyama fails to teach a diameter of the ring-shaped support structure is smaller than a diameter of the circular-shaped hard plate, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative size through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
In claim 16, Seyama (figure 3) teaches a group of rollers 31/38A for feeding the buffer layer 200 between the hard plate 20/36/31/32 and the semiconductor dies 102.
Regarding claim 21, Seyama (figures 1 & 3) bonding tool for bonding semiconductor dies to a semiconductor wafer, the bonding tool comprising:
a hard plate 20/36/31/32 movably disposed over the semiconductor dies 102 (column 3, lines 45-47 teaches plural dies mounted on one mounting region);
an edge support 35B/38B disposed underlying the hard plate 20/36/31/32;
a driving mechanism 13; and
a buffer layer 200 driven by the driving mechanism (attached to 31/32), wherein buffer layer 200 passes through the edge support 35B/38B such that portions the buffer layer 200 are sequentially transferred to a position between the hard plate 20/36/31/32 and the semiconductor dies 102, wherein the buffer layer 200 is in contact with the semiconductor dies 102 and the hard plate 20/36/31/32 when the hard plate 20/36/31/32 and the edge support 35B/38B move towards the semiconductor wafer 101.
Though Seyama fails to teach the buffer layer laterally penetrates through the edge support, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so in the invention of Seyama because it would prevent the buffer layer from sliding off, or slipping out of position, of the edge supports 35B/38B. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 22, Seyama (figure 1) teaches a wafer chuck 4, wherein the wafer chuck 4 carries the semiconductor wafer 101 and the semiconductor dies 102 placed on the semiconductor wafer 101.
As to claim 11, though Seyama fails to teach the wafer chuck 4 comprises a circular- shaped chuck, and the hard plate comprises a circular-shaped hard plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a circular chuck and hard plate in the invention of Seyama because changes in size, shape or proportion are within the ordinary level of skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
In re claim 12, though Seyama fails to teach the edge support 35B/38B is disposed between the hard plate and the semiconductor wafer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Seyama because the relative position is a known equivalent location for the edge support. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Concerning claim 14, though Seyama fails to teach the edge support comprises a ring- shaped support structure, and the hard plate comprises a circular-shaped hard plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a ring- shaped support structure and the hard plate being circular in the invention of Seyama because a support structure is conventionally known and used in the art to contact the edge support to the hard plate and to steady it. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use ring shaped an circular in the invention of Seyama because changes in shape are within the ordinary level of skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Pertaining to claim 15, though Seyama fails to teach a diameter of the ring-shaped support structure is smaller than a diameter of the circular-shaped hard plate, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative size through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
In claim 16, Seyama (figure 3) teaches a group of rollers 31/38A for feeding the buffer layer 200 between the hard plate 20/36/31/32 and the semiconductor dies 102.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teaches the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 5/15/26
Prosecution Insights