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 . 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2284150) in view of Hashima (KR 10-2007-0084527).
Park teaches a die bonding device (100) comprising: a picker (170) with a holding surface for picking up a die (20), wherein the holding surface comprises a plurality of air injection holes (172) and a plurality of vacuum holes (174) (See Figures; [0027]-[0029]; [0039]-[0046]). The die bonding device (100), picker (170), die (20), air injection holes (172), and vacuum holes (174) read on the instantly claimed manufacturing apparatus, pick-up head, bonding component, ejection holes through which gas is ejected, and suction holes through which gas is suctioned.
Regarding a controller configured to control flow rates of gas through the ejection holes and suction holes, Park states that the amount of air injected and sucked can be appropriately controlled to ensure that a gap between the die and the picker is maintained at a desired range (See [0045]). Since the suction and injection flow amounts are actively controlled, some type of controller is implicit in the Park reference.
Park does not expressly disclose a warpage measurement device configured to measure warpage of the bonding component, wherein the suction and injection flow amounts are controlled based upon a measured warpage.
Hashima teaches a cooling treatment device comprising: a cooling plate comprising spray/suction ports at a plurality of points on a surface thereof, a warpage measurement unit for measuring warpage of a substrate on the surface of the plate, and a control unit configured to adjust gas discharge and suction flow rates through the spray/suction ports based upon warpage measured by the warpage measurement unit (See Figures; [7]-[11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the warpage measurement device and control unit of Hashima into the die bonding device of Park and to adjust the suction and injection flow rates to counteract warpage in addition to sustaining a desired gap value. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Hashima that to do so would predictably allow a substrate to be maintained in a flat state (See [7]-[10]).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches a bonding head (182) which receives the die from the picker and bonds the die to a substrate (30) (See Figures; [0027]-[0029]). The substrate reads on the instantly claimed component. In the proposed combination, the picker and control unit act to change the shape of the die from a curved configuration to a flat configuration based upon measured warpage, as detailed above. Therefore, when the flattened die is transferred to a flat surface of the bonding head, the shape of the die has been changed by controlling suction and injection flow rates to match the flat shape of the bonding head, which meets the claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2284150) in view of Hashima (KR 10-2007-0084527) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satou (US 2023/0163018).
Park and Hashima combine to teach a die bonding device, as detailed above.
Park shows the plurality of air injection holes (172) and the plurality of vacuum holes (174) from a side view in Fig. 4 but does not discuss or show detailed arrangements of the holes on the holding surface of the picker. Consequently, Park and Hashima do not expressly disclose a plurality of regions that are outwardly spaced from a center of the holding surface as claimed.
Satou teaches a substrate holding device comprising a chuck (200) with a plurality of air bearing pads (300) comprising a gas supply opening (203) and a gas exhaust opening (204), wherein the air bearing pads are present in a plurality of regions outwardly spaced from a center of the chuck (See Figures; [0037]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange the air injection holes and vacuum holes in the device taught by Park and Hashima in a plurality of regions outwardly spaced from a center of the holding surface in the manner taught by Satou since Satou teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for a holding surface (See Figures; [0037]-[0042]).
In the proposed combination of Park, Hashima, and Satou, the control unit controls the flow rates of gas through the ejection holes and suction holes, which would occur for every such hole and therefore occur in each region as claimed.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2284150) in view of Hashima (KR 10-2007-0084527) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koelmel (US 2008/0276864).
Park and Hashima combine to teach a die bonding device, as detailed above.
Park and Hashima do not expressly disclose a positioning portion comprising a gas supply hole and a gas exhaust hole in a groove, wherein a flow of gas from the supply hole to the exhaust hole positions the bonding component.
Koelmel teaches an apparatus for supporting and positioning a substrate, the apparatus comprising a base plate (90) with gas flow pockets (97) with gas supply grooves (102) and vacuum grooves (104) at opposing sides within the pocket, wherein a flow of gas from a supply groove to a vacuum groove provides translational positioning movement to the substrate (See Figs. 9-10; [0039]-[0040]). The gas flow pockets, gas supply grooves, and vacuum grooves read on the instantly claimed groove, gas supply hole, and exhaust hole, respectively, and collectively read on the instantly claimed positioning portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the positioning portion of Koelmel into the holding surface of the picker in the device taught by the combination of Park and Hashima in order to provide the die in a desired position for processing.
Claims 6, 8-9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2284150) in view of Satou (US 2023/0163018).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches a die bonding device, as detailed above. The die bonding device (100), picker (170), die (20), air injection holes (172), and vacuum holes (174) of Park read on the instantly claimed manufacturing apparatus, pick-up head, bonding component, ejection holes through which gas is ejected, and suction holes through which gas is suctioned. Negative pressure formed by air flow between the air injection holes and the vacuum holes adsorbs and holds the die on the holding surface of the picker (See Figures; [0040]).
Park does not expressly disclose a plurality of regions comprising a central region at a center of the holding surface and a plurality of spaced apart concentric regions extending around the central region as claimed.
Satou teaches a substrate holding device comprising a chuck (200) with a plurality of air bearing pads (300) comprising a gas supply opening (203) and a gas exhaust opening (204) (See Figures; [0037]-[0042]). Figure 2 of Satou shows bearing pads in a central region of the chuck as well as spaced apart concentric regions around the central region as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange the air injection holes and vacuum holes in the device taught by Park in a plurality of regions comprising a central region at a center of the holding surface and a plurality of spaced apart concentric regions extending around the central region in the manner taught by Satou since Satou teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for a holding surface (See Figures; [0037]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 2 of Satou shows a central region of bearing pads and a first concentric region spaced from and surrounding the central region as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 2 of Satou shows a central region of bearing pads, a first concentric region spaced from and surrounding the central region, and a second concentric region spaced apart from and surrounding the first concentric region. While Satou does not expressly disclose a third concentric region surrounding the second concentric region, the addition of such a region amounts to a duplication of parts (i.e. simply adding more air bearings to the holding surface) which has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced. In this case, an additional concentric region of air bearings functions in an identical manner to the air bearings already present, and the inclusion of such a region therefore yields a predictable result.
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches a die bonding device, as detailed above. The die bonding device (100), picker (170), die (20), air injection holes (172), and vacuum holes (174) of Park read on the instantly claimed manufacturing apparatus, pick-up head, bonding component, ejection holes through which gas is ejected, and suction holes through which gas is suctioned. Regarding a controller configured to control flow rates of gas through the ejection holes and suction holes, Park states that the amount of air injected and sucked can be appropriately controlled to ensure that a gap between the die and the picker is maintained at a desired range (See [0045]). Since the suction and injection flow amounts are actively controlled, some type of controller is implicit in the Park reference.
Park does not expressly disclose a plurality of regions that are outwardly spaced from a center of the holding surface as claimed.
Satou teaches a substrate holding device comprising a chuck (200) with a plurality of air bearing pads (300) comprising a gas supply opening (203) and a gas exhaust opening (204), wherein the air bearing pads are present in a plurality of regions outwardly spaced from a center of the chuck (See Figures; [0037]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange the air injection holes and vacuum holes in the device taught by Park in a plurality of regions outwardly spaced from a center of the holding surface in the manner taught by Satou since Satou teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for a holding surface (See Figures; [0037]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches a bonding head (182) which receives the die from the picker and bonds the die to a substrate (30) (See Figures; [0027]-[0029]). The substrate reads on the instantly claimed component.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2284150) in view of Satou (US 2023/0163018) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Grejda (US 2020/0266092).
Park and Satou combine to teach a die bonding device, as detailed above.
Park and Satou do not expressly disclose two or more injection holes adjacent each of the suction holes as claimed.
Grejda teaches an apparatus (10) for holding a thin substrate (12), the apparatus comprising a plurality of positive pressure regions (20) and a plurality of negative pressure regions (40) interspersed with the positive pressure regions (See Figures; [0018]; [0029]; [0038]-[0046]). The negative pressure regions correspond to the instantly claimed suction holes, and the positive pressure regions correspond to the instantly claimed ejection holes. The positive and negative pressure regions may be alternately arranged such that each negative pressure region is sandwiched between two positive pressure regions as shown in Figures 1-4. This meets the limitation wherein there are two ejection holes adjacent each suction hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide alternately arranged positive and negative pressure regions in the die bonding device taught by the combination of Park and Satou since Grejda teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for a substrate holding apparatus (See Figures; [0018]; [0029]; [0038]-[0046]).
Claims 10-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2284150) in view of Satou (US 2023/0163018) as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Koelmel (US 2008/0276864).
Park and Satou combine to teach a die bonding device, as detailed above.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Park and Satou do not expressly disclose at least one positioning portion comprising at least one gas supply hole and at least one gas exhaust hole, wherein the at least one positioning portion is configured to position the semiconductor device by flowing gas from the at least one gas supply hole to the at least one exhaust hole.
Koelmel teaches an apparatus for supporting and positioning a substrate, the apparatus comprising a base plate (90) with gas flow pockets (97) with gas supply grooves (102) and vacuum grooves (104) at opposing sides within the pocket, wherein a flow of gas from a supply groove to a vacuum groove provides translational positioning movement to the substrate (See Figs. 9-10; [0039]-[0040]). The gas supply grooves and vacuum grooves read on the instantly claimed at least one gas supply hole and at least one exhaust hole, respectively, and collectively read on the instantly claimed at least one positioning portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the positioning portion of Koelmel into the holding surface of the picker in the device taught by the combination of Park and Satou in order to provide the die in a desired position for processing.
Regarding claim 11, Koelmel shows four gas flow pockets (97) in Fig. 9, with adjacent pockets extending in transverse directions relative to one another.
Regarding claim 12, Koelmel shows the positioning portions located at a central portion and adjacent to a first concentric region (See Fig. 9). The rearrangement of parts is not patentably significant if such rearrangement is a routine matter of a design choice which does not materially modify operation of a device. In this case, the placement of the positioning portions relative to the plurality of regions is a routine matter of design choice and does not materially modify the operation of the die bonding device. The positioning portions function in an identical manner and yield the same predictable result of translating the die into a desired position regardless of their placement on the holding surface. Therefore the placement of the positioning portions of Koelmel between adjacent concentric regions in the die bonding device taught by the combination of Park and Satou would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claims 13-14, the gas flow pocket (97) of Koelmel reads on the instantly claimed groove in which the gas supply hole and exhaust hole are located, and the pockets each have a first end containing the gas supply hole and a second end containing the exhaust hole. Regarding the number and relative sizes of the holes in claims 13 and 14, the selection of such features is a routine matter of design choice which does not materially impact the operation of the device and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 15, the gas flow pockets of Koelmel extend along four different directions, each of which corresponds to a side edge of the holding surface (See Fig. 9). Koelmel shows the positioning portions located at a central portion rather than being adjacent to the side edges of the holding surface as claimed. The rearrangement of parts is not patentably significant if such rearrangement is a routine matter of a design choice which does not materially modify operation of a device. In this case, the placement of the positioning portions relative on the holding surface is a routine matter of design choice and does not materially modify the operation of the die bonding device. The positioning portions function in an identical manner and yield the same predictable result of translating the die into a desired position regardless of their placement on the holding surface. Therefore the placement of the positioning portions of Koelmel adjacent side edges of the holding surface rather than at a central region thereof in the die bonding device taught by the combination of Park and Satou would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 18, the gas flow pocket (97) of Koelmel reads on the instantly claimed groove in which the gas supply hole and exhaust hole are located.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 10-2284150) in view of Satou (US 2023/0163018) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hashima (KR 10-2007-0084527).
Park and Satou combine to teach a die bonding device, as detailed above.
Park and Satou do not expressly disclose a warpage measurement device configured to measure warpage of the bonding component, wherein the suction and injection flow amounts are controlled based upon a measured warpage.
Hashima teaches a cooling treatment device comprising: a cooling plate comprising spray/suction ports at a plurality of points on a surface thereof, a warpage measurement unit for measuring warpage of a substrate on the surface of the plate, and a control unit configured to adjust gas discharge and suction flow rates through the spray/suction ports based upon warpage measured by the warpage measurement unit (See Figures; [7]-[11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the warpage measurement device and control unit of Hashima into the die bonding device taught by the combination of Park and Satou and to adjust the suction and injection flow rates to counteract warpage in addition to sustaining a desired gap value. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Hashima that to do so would predictably allow a substrate to be maintained in a flat state (See [7]-[10]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746