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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the laser recitation of Burggraf is a functional recitation which does not equate to a structural disclosure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation of the current application recites “an energy beam generator generating an energy beam towards the first carrier and the second carrier”. The limitation as written lacks any specific structure and only provides the function that it generates an energy beam. Therefore, the laser in Burggraf is analgous to the energy beam generator of the current application.
The applicant further argues that the technical problems faced by Hayashi and Burggraf are different therefore they would lack motivation to combine. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Burggraf is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hayashi and Burggraf are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor. For example, Burggraf is classified the same art as the current invention (H10P72/74) and Burggraf and Hayashi share a common class (H10P72/78).
The applicant further asserts that the technical means of the cited references are fundamentally incompatible. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The requirements cited in the arguments are a specific form of laser welding under a vacuum that neither the current claims are the prior art require. For example, the claims do not require the chamber to be under vacuum nor does Hayashi [0069], nor does Burggraf. The broad nature of the claims does not require the specific chamber environment argued that may make the combination incompatible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (hereinafter Hayashi, US 2014/0182761) in view of Burggraf (Hereinafter Burggraf, US 2023/0062106).
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (hereinafter Hayashi, US 2014/0182761) in view of Burggraf (Hereinafter Burggraf, US 2023/0062106).
In regards to independent claim 1, Hayashi teaches an apparatus for bonding an electronic component, comprising:
a first carrier (12) configured to carry a first substrate (W1) and having a first carrying surface (Hayashi, “The substrate retention unit 12 that retains the first substrate W1 to be bonded,” [0022]);
a second carrier (13) configured to carry a second substrate (W2), and having a second carrying surface (Hayashi, “The substrate support unit 13 supports the peripheral edge portion of the substrate W2 provided in opposition to the substrate W1 supported by the substrate retention unit 12 with a predetermined gap”, [0049]);
a driving mechanism enabling the first carrier and the second carrier to move close to and far away from each other (Hayashi, [0123], “In this case, the support claw 13a is gradually moved in the retraction direction as the bonding progresses. When the support claw 13a is moved in the retraction direction, the portion supported by the support claw 13a moves to the peripheral edge portion side of the substrate W2, so the position in the height direction of the peripheral edge portion of the substrate W2 is lowered. Therefore, the portion in which the bonding face of the substrate W1 and the bonding face of the substrate W2 are in contact (the bonded portion) spreads from the central portion to the peripheral edge portion”);
a substrate adjustment mechanism enabling the carried first substrate and the carried second substrate to be in a non-parallel configuration (Hayashi teaches deforming W1 so that the two wafer, “In addition, it is possible to control the flow rate or the temperature of the gas to be supplied to the inside of the nozzles 12a2 to deform the substrate W1 into a shape suitable for processing. For example, it is possible to deform the substrate into a shape so that the central region of the substrate W1 projects upwards (substrate W2 side). By deforming the substrate W1 into this shape, the central region of the substrate W1 can easily contact the substrate W2, so bonding is easy,” [0046]); and
Hayashi fails to explicit teach the second carrier has the electronic component to be bonded and an energy beam generator generating an energy beam towards the first carrier and the second carrier.
Burgraff teaches the second carrier has the electronic component to be bonded (Burggraf, [0163], “a sender substrate 1 is provided with a plurality of components 2… a bonding process of components 2 with the aid of a bonding means 3, in particular with the aid of a laser, takes place via component surface 2o in such a way that an adhesive area 3 is formed between component 2 and transfer substrate 4”)
an energy beam generator generating an energy beam towards the first carrier and the second carrier (Burggraf teaches using a laser beam to bond components, “the bonding means and/or debonding means are a laser. The laser radiation emitted by the laser can act over the whole area and/or in a very point-like manner on the substrates or the components”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayashi and Burggraf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate bonding taught by Hayashi to include the bonding of semiconductor elements with a laser beam of Burggraf in order to obtain a bonding of substrates through bonding of an semiconductor element using a laser beam. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because enables the transfer of semiconductor elements to different substrates without causing electrical defects.
In regards to dependent claim 2, Hayashi teaches wherein the substrate adjustment mechanism comprises two suction nozzles disposed opposite to each other and disposed near the second carrier, the two suction nozzles are not located at positions between the first carrying surface and the second carrying surface and suck air in a direction away from the second carrying surface (Hayashi, [0088], Fig. 2, Nozzles Item 12A2 that suck air through space between W1 and 12a1, Fig. 3A), .
In regards to dependent claim 3, Hayashi teaches wherein the substrate adjustment mechanism arranges the first carrier and the second carrier in a way that the first carrying surface and the second carrying surface are in a non-parallel configuration (Hayashi teaches deforming W1 so that the two wafer, “In addition, it is possible to control the flow rate or the temperature of the gas to be supplied to the inside of the nozzles 12a2 to deform the substrate W1 into a shape suitable for processing. For example, it is possible to deform the substrate into a shape so that the central region of the substrate W1 projects upwards (substrate W2 side). By deforming the substrate W1 into this shape, the central region of the substrate W1 can easily contact the substrate W2, so bonding is easy,” [0046]).
In regards to dependent claim 4, Hayashi fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy beam is a laser beam (Burggraf teaches using a laser beam to bond components, “the bonding means and/or debonding means are a laser. The laser radiation emitted by the laser can act over the whole area and/or in a very point-like manner on the substrates or the components”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayashi and Burggraf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate bonding taught by Hayashi to include the bonding of semiconductor elements with a laser beam of Burggraf in order to obtain a bonding of substrates through bonding of an semiconductor element using a laser beam. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because enables the transfer of semiconductor elements to different substrates without causing electrical defects.
In regards to independent claim 5, Hayashi teaches a method for bonding an electronic component, comprising:
providing a first substrate (W1) having a bonded surface (Hayashi, “The substrate retention unit 12 that retains the first substrate W1 to be bonded,” [0022]);
providing a second substrate (Hayashi, “The substrate support unit 13 supports the peripheral edge portion of the substrate W2 provided in opposition to the substrate W1 supported by the substrate retention unit 12 with a predetermined gap”, [0049]);
arranging the first substrate and the second substrate to be in a non-parallel configuration; (Hayashi teaches deforming W1 so that the two wafer, “In addition, it is possible to control the flow rate or the temperature of the gas to be supplied to the inside of the nozzles 12a2 to deform the substrate W1 into a shape suitable for processing. For example, it is possible to deform the substrate into a shape so that the central region of the substrate W1 projects upwards (substrate W2 side). By deforming the substrate W1 into this shape, the central region of the substrate W1 can easily contact the substrate W2, so bonding is easy,” [0046]).
moving the first substrate and/or the second substrate to approach each other in the non-parallel configuration till the first substrate contacts the second substrate at a contact region (Hayashi, [0122], “the substrate W2 is bent by pressing with the pad 14c approximately the central portion of the substrate W2 supported by the support claw 13a, to bring a portion of the bonding face of the substrate W1 into contact with a portion of the bonding face of the substrate W2”);
continuing to move the first substrate and/or the second substrate to achieve a full contact of the first substrate and the second substrate from the mere contact of the contact region (Hayashi, [0123], “In this case, the support claw 13a is gradually moved in the retraction direction as the bonding progresses. When the support claw 13a is moved in the retraction direction, the portion supported by the support claw 13a moves to the peripheral edge portion side of the substrate W2, so the position in the height direction of the peripheral edge portion of the substrate W2 is lowered. Therefore, the portion in which the bonding face of the substrate W1 and the bonding face of the substrate W2 are in contact (the bonded portion) spreads from the central portion to the peripheral edge portion”);; and
Hayashi fails to explicitly teach having a surface on which the electronic component to be bonded is disposed, placing the first substrate and the second substrate in a way that the bonded surface of the first substrate faces the surface of the second substrate on which the electronic component to be bonded is disposed, and applying an energy beam to bond the electronic component from the second substrate onto the bonded surface of the first substrate.
Burggraf teaches:
having a surface on which the electronic component to be bonded is disposed (Burggraf, [0163], “a sender substrate 1 is provided with a plurality of components 2… a bonding process of components 2 with the aid of a bonding means 3, in particular with the aid of a laser, takes place via component surface 2o in such a way that an adhesive area 3 is formed between component 2 and transfer substrate 4”);
placing the first substrate and the second substrate in a way that the bonded surface of the first substrate faces the surface of the second substrate on which the electronic component to be bonded is disposed (Burggraf, “FIG. 1b shows a second process step, in which a transfer substrate 4, in particular a film which has been stretched out on a frame 5, is positioned and fixed over components 2 of sender substrate 1” [0164]);
applying an energy beam to bond the electronic component from the second substrate onto the bonded surface of the first substrate (Burggraf teaches using a laser beam to bond components, “the bonding means and/or debonding means are a laser. The laser radiation emitted by the laser can act over the whole area and/or in a very point-like manner on the substrates or the components”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayashi and Burggraf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate bonding taught by Hayashi to include the bonding of semiconductor elements with a laser beam of Burggraf in order to obtain a bonding of substrates through bonding of an semiconductor element using a laser beam. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because enables the transfer of semiconductor elements to different substrates without causing electrical defects.
In regards to dependent claim 6, Hayashi teaches wherein the contact region is located in a central area of the first substrate and the second substrate (Hayashi, [0046]).
In regards to dependent claim 7, Hayashi fails to explicitly teach wherein the contact region is located in a peripheral area of the first substrate and the second substrate. Burgraaf teaches wherein the contact region is located in a peripheral area of the first substrate and the second substrate (Burgraaf, Fig. 3b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayashi and Burggraf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate bonding taught by Hayashi to include the bonding of semiconductor elements with a laser beam of Burggraf in order to obtain a bonding of substrates through bonding of an semiconductor element using a laser beam. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because enables the transfer of semiconductor elements to different substrates without causing electrical defects.
In regards to dependent claim 8, Hayashi fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy beam is a laser beam. Burggraf teaches wherein the energy beam is a laser beam (Burggraf teaches using a laser beam to bond components, “the bonding means and/or debonding means are a laser. The laser radiation emitted by the laser can act over the whole area and/or in a very point-like manner on the substrates or the components”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayashi and Burggraf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate bonding taught by Hayashi to include the bonding of semiconductor elements with a laser beam of Burggraf in order to obtain a bonding of substrates through bonding of an semiconductor element using a laser beam. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because enables the transfer of semiconductor elements to different substrates without causing electrical defects.
In regards to dependent claim 9, Hayashi fails to explicitly teach wherein the electronic component is a light-emitting diode. Burggraf teaches wherein the electronic component is a light-emitting diode (Burggraf, [0173]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayashi and Burggraf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate bonding taught by Hayashi to include the bonding of semiconductor elements with a laser beam of Burggraf in order to obtain a bonding of substrates through bonding of an semiconductor element using a laser beam. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because enables the transfer of semiconductor elements to different substrates without causing electrical defects.
In regards to dependent claim 10, Hayashi fails to explicitly teach bonding the light-emitting diode using the method for bonding an electronic component. Burggraf teaches bonding the light-emitting diode using the method for bonding an electronic component (Burggraf , [0016]) according to claim 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hayashi and Burggraf before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the substrate bonding taught by Hayashi to include the bonding of semiconductor elements with a laser beam of Burggraf in order to obtain a bonding of substrates through bonding of an semiconductor element using a laser beam. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because enables the transfer of semiconductor elements to different substrates without causing electrical defects.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights