DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/31/25. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended; claims 2, 7, 9-14, 18-20, 22, 23, 29-31, 35 and 37 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-6, 8, 15-17, 21, 24-28, 32-34, 36 and 38 are presently pending in this application.
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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1, 3-6, 8, 15-17 and 21 drawn to a method) in the reply filed on 05/21/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hembree (US 2001/0041518) in view of Sung et al. (US 2014/0004660).
With regard to claim 1, Hembree teaches a method for circuit fabrication (para. [0001]), comprising: optically inspecting (via gauge 109; “One may note that the planarization gauge 109 is depicted in FIG. 2 as being an optical device that senses the planarity of the outer surfaces 16, 16 a, such as the type of laser-based gauges disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,663,797 to Sandhu”, para. [0029]) an array of solder bumps (12) on a circuit substrate so as to identify a solder bump having a height above the substrate that is greater than a predefined maximum (“tallest balls”; “gauge 109 could measure all the balls 12 on the package 10 and then the planarization member 100, 100A could be directed to only mill off the “tallest” balls. The balls chosen to receive the planarization action could be determined by, for example, a software program. The software program could accept input signals from the gauge 109 and transmit control signals to a controller which controllably positions the planarization member 100, 100A to act on the tallest solder balls 12, thus substantially planarizing the solder balls in a fully-automated, controlled fashion.”, para. [0030]) and a solder bump having a height less than a predefined minimum (“the gauge 109 may be used to check the outer surfaces 16, 16 a to determine whether the solder balls 12 are all approximately the same height. If the outer surfaces are not planarized to the desired tolerance, the planarization apparatus 100 may be re-engaged with the outer surfaces 16, 16 a one or more times until the balls are substantially planarized.”, para. [0026]); wherein for the height of the identified solder bump above the substrate is greater than the predefined maximum (“seating plane 307”; “The highest solderballs then define a seating plane 307. For example, for a two-dimensional array of solder balls, the seating plane 307 may be defined by the three tallest balls or, if desired, from the single tallest ball. Similarly, for a single row of solder balls, the seating plane 307 may be determined from the two tallest balls or the single tallest ball.”, para. [0044]). Furthermore, Hembree teaches wherein when the height of the identified solder bump above the substrate is less than the predefined minimum, the method further comprises: depositing one or more molten droplets of solder material on the identified solder bump, whereby the droplets adhere to and harden on the identified solder bump; (“for a single row of solder balls, the seating plane 307 may be determined from the two tallest balls or the single tallest ball. Once the seating plane 307 is established, the solder deposition device 304 is positioned over each of the shorter solder balls and deposits one or more buildup layers of solder 308 on each of the shorter balls; The buildup layers 308 are successively applied until the height of each solder ball reaches the seating plane 307 through an “additive” planarization process, and the outer surfaces are substantially planarized.”, para. [0044]; “through combination of various “substractive” and “additive” processes, damaged balls may be partially or wholly removed and replaced until the solder balls 12 are substantially planarized. Thus, the inventive apparatus and processes may be used to rework or repair bumped devices 10 with missing or damaged solder balls.”, para. [0045]).
Although Hembree teaches melting and reflowing a solder material utilizing a platen to perform an ablation function (“Although the heated platen 202 is shown in FIG. 5 as only contacting four of the solder balls 12, it is apparent that the platen may be made as large or as small as desirable. The platen may, for example, be coextensive with all the balls of the bumped device 10. Alternately, the heated platen may be configured to contact only one ball (or one row) at a time, such as by using a roller, a blade, a squeegee, or other configuration.”, para. [0039]), Hembree does not explicitly teach the method further comprises: directing a first laser beam toward the identified solder bump so as to ablate a selected amount of a solder material from the identified solder bump; and after ablating the solder material, directing a second laser beam toward the identified solder bump with sufficient energy to cause the solder material remaining in the identified solder bump to melt and reflow; and after depositing the solder material, directing the second laser beam toward the identified solder bump with sufficient energy to cause the deposited solder material to melt and reflow into the identified solder bump. However, Sung from the same field of endeavor directed toward a system and method for forming rigid interconnect structures teaches the aforementioned limitations: directing a first laser beam toward the identified solder bump so as to ablate a selected amount of a solder material from the identified solder bump (“interconnects 122 are trimmed in block 410 …a laser trimming system 120 may be configured to extend across one or more interconnects, and the laser or cutting edge may be moved across the target package 109 to trim the interconnects 122. Thus, the laser may trim multiple interconnect 122 tails in a single pass. In particularly useful embodiments of a laser trimming system 120, the laser cutting area width may be thick or wide enough to vaporize all of the interconnect 122 tail extending above a predetermined height, leaving no excess material.”, para. [0033]); and after ablating the solder material, directing a second laser beam toward the identified solder bump with sufficient energy to cause the solder material remaining in the identified solder bump to melt and reflow, and after depositing the solder material, directing the second laser beam toward the identified solder bump with sufficient energy to cause the deposited solder material to melt and reflow into the identified solder bump (“Any final interconnect 122 processing may also be performed at this stage as well. For example, in one embodiment, any solder attaching the interconnects 122 to the target package 109 or top package 218 may be reflowed to permanently bond the interconnects 122. This particular embodiment may be useful where laser trimming is used”, para. [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Hembree reference, to include directing a first laser beam toward the identified solder bump so as to ablate a selected amount of a solder material from the identified solder bump; and after ablating the solder material, directing a second laser beam toward the identified solder bump with sufficient energy to cause the solder material remaining in the identified solder bump to melt and reflow and after depositing the solder material, directing the second laser beam toward the identified solder bump with sufficient energy to cause the deposited solder material to melt and reflow into the identified solder bump, as suggested and taught by Sung, for the purpose of providing excess material removal and reflow of remaining material to permanently bond the interconnects (Sung: para. [0036]).
With regard to claim 3, Hembree teaches inspecting the array comprises estimating, based on the height of the identified solder bump above the substrate, the amount of the solder material to be removed from the identified solder bump (“tallest balls”; “gauge 109 could measure all the balls 12 on the package 10 and then the planarization member 100, 100A could be directed to only mill off the “tallest” balls. The balls chosen to receive the planarization action could be determined by, for example, a software program. The software program could accept input signals from the gauge 109 and transmit control signals to a controller which controllably positions the planarization member 100, 100A to act on the tallest solder balls 12, thus substantially planarizing the solder balls in a fully-automated, controlled fashion.”, para. [0030]) or an amount of the solder material to be added to the identified solder bump; whereas the secondary citation Sung teaches directing the first laser beam comprises directing a selected number of pulses of laser energy to impinge on the identified solder bump based on the estimated amount of the solder material to be removed (“interconnects 122 are trimmed in block 410 …a laser trimming system 120 may be configured to extend across one or more interconnects, and the laser or cutting edge may be moved across the target package 109 to trim the interconnects 122. Thus, the laser may trim multiple interconnect 122 tails in a single pass. In particularly useful embodiments of a laser trimming system 120, the laser cutting area width may be thick or wide enough to vaporize all of the interconnect 122 tail extending above a predetermined height, leaving no excess material.”, para. [0033]). Furthermore, Hembree teaches the following limitation: “wherein depositing the one or more molten droplets comprises depositing a selected number of droplets to deposit on the identified solder bump based on the estimated amount of solder material to be added” (“for a single row of solder balls, the seating plane 307 may be determined from the two tallest balls or the single tallest ball. Once the seating plane 307 is established, the solder deposition device 304 is positioned over each of the shorter solder balls and deposits one or more buildup layers of solder 308 on each of the shorter balls; The buildup layers 308 are successively applied until the height of each solder ball reaches the seating plane 307 through an “additive” planarization process, and the outer surfaces are substantially planarized.”, para. [0044]; “through combination of various “substractive” and “additive” processes, damaged balls may be partially or wholly removed and replaced until the solder balls 12 are substantially planarized. Thus, the inventive apparatus and processes may be used to rework or repair bumped devices 10 with missing or damaged solder balls.”, para. [0045]).
With regard to claim 5, Hembree teaches when the height of the identified solder bump above the substrate is greater than the predefined maximum (“tallest balls”; “gauge 109 could measure all the balls 12 on the package 10 and then the planarization member 100, 100A could be directed to only mill off the “tallest” balls. The balls chosen to receive the planarization action could be determined by, for example, a software program. The software program could accept input signals from the gauge 109 and transmit control signals to a controller which controllably positions the planarization member 100, 100A to act on the tallest solder balls 12, thus substantially planarizing the solder balls in a fully-automated, controlled fashion.”, para. [0030]), whereas Sung teaches repeating the steps of directing the first laser beam so as to ablate the solder material and directing the second laser beam so as to cause the solder material to melt and reflow multiple times until the height of the solder bump has fallen below the predefined maximum (“A laser trimming system may have a cutting beam wide enough to vaporize any excess material when trimming, and trimming may take place in a single pass, or in multiple passes.”, para. [0015]); and furthermore, Hembree teaches the following limitation: “when the height of the identified solder bump above the substrate is less than the predefined minimum, repeating the steps of depositing the molten droplets of the solder material and directing the laser beam so as to cause the solder material to melt and reflow multiple times until the height of the solder bump has risen above the predefined minimum” (“for a single row of solder balls, the seating plane 307 may be determined from the two tallest balls or the single tallest ball. Once the seating plane 307 is established, the solder deposition device 304 is positioned over each of the shorter solder balls and deposits one or more buildup layers of solder 308 on each of the shorter balls; The buildup layers 308 are successively applied until the height of each solder ball reaches the seating plane 307 through an “additive” planarization process, and the outer surfaces are substantially planarized.”, para. [0044]; “through combination of various “substractive” and “additive” processes, damaged balls may be partially or wholly removed and replaced until the solder balls 12 are substantially planarized. Thus, the inventive apparatus and processes may be used to rework or repair bumped devices 10 with missing or damaged solder balls.”, para. [0045]).
With regard to claim 8, Sung teaches the first laser beam and the second laser beam are generated using a single laser having a variable pulse duration (“A laser trimming system may have a cutting beam wide enough to vaporize any excess material when trimming, and trimming may take place in a single pass, or in multiple passes.”, para. [0015]).
With regard to claim 21, with regard to the limitation of directing the second laser beam comprises applying sufficient energy to the identified solder bump, using the second laser beam, to melt an entire volume of the identified solder bump, including any deposited solder material, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of an obvious change in size/proportion and/or shape (MPEP 2144.04 IV.A Change in Size/Proportion or B. Changes in Shape) to remove an existing solder bump which does not satisfy a desired shape/proportion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6 and 15-17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered and are addressed hereafter. The prior art rejections have been adapted in view of the newly presented claim amendments.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761