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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 7/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 12/28/2023, claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “light-shieling portion” should be “light-shielding portion”.
Claim 8, lines 3-4, “light-shieling portion” should be “light-shielding portion”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee US 20150125999 A1
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses
A soldering apparatus (100, see fig.1A-1B and para.007), comprising:
a light source (50, see fig.1B) configured to supply light radiation required for soldering (See para.0043: “the heating unit 50 may irradiate light 56 such as the laser beam, the infrared ray or the visible ray or may emit heat. If the intensity of the light 56 or the heat is great, the solder ball 38 receiving the light 56 or the heat may be almost instantaneously melted”); and
a mask (40, see fig.1B) disposed on a light path of the light source (50, see fig.1-4B and para.0043) and comprising a light-shieling portion (the shielding mask 40 portion where the holes 42 are not formed. See light-shielding portion in annotated fig.4A below and see para.0043: “the light 56 or the heat may be shielded by the shielding mask 40 where the holes 42 are not formed”) and a plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see fig.4A-4B and para0043: “The light or the heat may pass through only the holes 42 according to the movement of the heating unit 50”) , wherein the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) are spaced apart by the light-shielding portion (See light-shielding portion in annotated fig.4A below) and are configured for the light radiation to pass through (See para.0043).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4A of Lee
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses the light source (50, see fig.1B) is a line light source or an area light source (see fig.1B).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses
A soldering method, using a soldering apparatus (see title), wherein the soldering apparatus (100, see fig.1A-1B and para.007) comprises:
a light source (50, see fig.1B) configured to supply light radiation required for soldering (See para.0043: “the heating unit 50 may irradiate light 56 such as the laser beam, the infrared ray or the visible ray or may emit heat. If the intensity of the light 56 or the heat is great, the solder ball 38 receiving the light 56 or the heat may be almost instantaneously melted”); and
a mask (40, see fig.1B) disposed on a light path of the light source (50, see fig.1-4B and para.0043) and comprising a light-shieling portion (the shielding mask 40 portion where the holes 42 are not formed. See light-shielding portion in annotated fig.4A below and see para.0043: “the light 56 or the heat may be shielded by the shielding mask 40 where the holes 42 are not formed”) and a plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see fig.4A-4B and para0043: “The light or the heat may pass through only the holes 42 according to the movement of the heating unit 50”), wherein the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) are spaced apart by the light-shielding portion (See light-shielding portion in annotated fig.4A below) and are configured for the light radiation to pass through (See para.0043), wherein the soldering method comprises:
aligning to-be-soldered devices (38, see fig.1A-B) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see figs.1A-B) of the mask (40) respectively; and
making light radiation emitted by the light resource (50) transmit the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) to solder the to-be-soldered devices (38) in batch (see figs.1A-B).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4A of Lee
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38, see fig.1A-B) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see figs.1A-B) of the mask (40) respectively comprising:
adjusting a position of a movable platform (44, see fig.3A) to align the to-be-soldered devices (38) on a substrate (36, see fig.3A) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see figs.3A-B) respectively (See para.0042).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Mizumura US 20200194260 A1
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the plurality of light- transmissive portions comprise a plurality of light-transmissive sub-portions having different transmittances.
Mizumura discloses a laser irradiation device, comprising:
the plurality of light- transmissive portions (16, see fig.8B) comprise a plurality of light-transmissive sub-portions (16a-16b, see fig.8B) having different transmittances (See fig.8B and para.0081).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the plurality of light- transmissive portions of Lee to comprise the “plurality of light-transmissive sub-portions having different transmittances” as taught by Mizumura. This allows for local control of exposure dose in laser-driven processes, ensuring that certain regions receive more or less energy than others. It enables precise control over the material interaction.
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the plurality of light- transmissive sub-portions comprises a first light-transmissive sub-portion, a second light- transmissive sub-portion and a third light-transmissive sub-portion; and a transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion ranges from 50% to 80%, a transmittance of the second light-transmissive sub-portion ranges from 85% to 95%, and a transmittance of the third light-transmissive sub-portion ranges from 95% to 100%.
Mizumura further discloses the plurality of light- transmissive sub-portions (16, see fig.8B) comprises a first light-transmissive sub-portion (one of opening portion 16 other than 16a-16b, see fig.8B), a second light- transmissive sub-portion (16b, see fig.8) and a third light-transmissive sub-portion (16b, see fig.8); and
a transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion ranges from 50% to 80%,
a transmittance of the second light-transmissive sub-portion (16b) ranges from 85% to 95% (90.5%, see fig.8B), and a transmittance of the third light-transmissive sub-portion (16c) ranges from 95% to 100% (96.1%, see fig.8B).
Lee in view of Mizumura does not expressly disclose a transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion ranges from 50% to 80%.
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.8B of Mizumura), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
In this case Lee in view of Mizumura teaches a certain transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion, and having a specific transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation (See para.0106 of Mizumura: “…(1) changing of the transmittance of the opening portion 16 of the projection mask pattern 15 and (2) adjusting of the size of the opening portion 16 of the projection mask pattern 15 may be performed.”). In this case varying the transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion to set “the energy density of the laser light on the substrate to be substantially uniform, the variation in the energy density applied to the substrate can be reduced” (See para.0087 of Mizumura).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Matsuda US 20130128910 A1
Regarding claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except a reflective mirror, wherein light radiation emitted by the light source is reflected to the mask by the reflective mirror.
Matsuda discloses a laser lift-off apparatus, comprising:
a reflective mirror (43, see fig.2 and para.0038), wherein light radiation emitted by the light source (20, see fig.2) is reflected to the mask (44, see fig.2) by the reflective mirror (43).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee invention to incorporate the “reflective mirror, wherein light radiation emitted by the light source is reflected to the mask by the reflective mirror” as taught by Matsuda. Doing so allows to control the beam’s trajectory so it passes cleanly through the mask and into the work area or target which maintains beam quality, and prevents damage to protective components.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yutaka (JP2018010192A)
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses the light-shielding portion is opaque (See para.0035), except a surface of the light-shielding portion is provided with a concave-convex structure for reflecting light.
Yutaka discloses a reflective mask, comprising:
a surface of the light-shielding portion (12, see fig.1-5) is provided with a concave-convex structure for reflecting light (See para.0021: “In the reflective mask 100, the multilayer reflective film 12 has a concave pattern (see FIGS. 2A and 2B) formed between a convex pattern and a convex pattern”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee invention to modify the surface of the light-shielding portion of Lee to be “provided with a concave-convex structure for reflecting light” as taught by Yutaka. Doing so distributes the energy over a larger area, which may reduce hot spots and potential thermal damage.
Regarding claim 13 , the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses the light-shielding portion is opaque (See para.0035), except a surface of the light-shielding portion is provided with a concave-convex structure for reflecting light.
Yutaka discloses a reflective mask, comprising:
a surface of the light-shielding portion (12, see fig.1-5) is provided with a concave-convex structure for reflecting light (See para.0021: “In the reflective mask 100, the multilayer reflective film 12 has a concave pattern (see FIGS. 2A and 2B) formed between a convex pattern and a convex pattern”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee invention to modify the surface of the light-shielding portion of Lee to be “provided with a concave-convex structure for reflecting light” as taught by Yutaka. Doing so distributes the energy over a larger area, which may reduce hot spots and potential thermal damage.
Regarding claim 19, Lee further discloses
the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38, see fig.1A-B) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see figs.1A-B) of the mask (40) respectively comprising:
adjusting a position of a movable platform (44, see fig.3A) to align the to-be-soldered devices (38) on a substrate (36, see fig.3A) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see figs.3A-B) respectively (See para.0042).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Farnworth (US 20080318395 A1)
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses a substrate (60, see fig.9) is configured for placement of to-be-soldered devices (66, see fig.9), except a movable platform, wherein the substrate is disposed on the movable platform.
Farnworth discloses Methods and systems for imaging and cutting semiconductor wafers, comprising:
a movable platform (104, see fig.1 and para.009), wherein the substrate (102) is disposed on the movable platform (104, see fig.1 and para.009).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee invention to incorporate the movable platform of Farnworth so as the substrate is disposed on the movable platform as taught by Farnworth. Doing so facilitates attaching the solder balls.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jywe US 20120156320 A1
Regarding claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses before the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) of the mask (40) respectively, further comprising: detecting optically the position of the movable platform, and initializing the position of the movable platform (33, see fig.2A).
Lee does not expressly disclose detecting optically the position of the movable platform.
Jywe discloses a manufacturing-process equipment, comprising:
detecting optically the position of the movable platform (See para.0033-0035).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee invention to include the step of detecting optically the position of the movable platform as taught by Jywe. Doing so allows to detect the position of the platform in order to align the soldered devices with the plurality of light-transmissive portions quickly and accurately.
Claims 11-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Mizumura US 20200194260 A1
Regarding claim 11, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the plurality of light-transmissive portions comprises a plurality of light-transmissive sub-portions having different transmittances.
Mizumura discloses a laser irradiation device, comprising:
the plurality of light- transmissive portions (16, see fig.8B) comprise a plurality of light-transmissive sub-portions (16a-16b, see fig.8B) having different transmittances (See fig.8B and para.0081).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the plurality of light- transmissive portions of Lee to comprise the “plurality of light-transmissive sub-portions having different transmittances” as taught by Mizumura. This allows for local control of exposure dose in laser-driven processes, ensuring that certain regions receive more or less energy than others. It enables precise control over the material interaction.
Regarding claim 12, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the plurality of light-transmissive sub-portions comprise a first light-transmissive sub-portion, a second light-transmissive sub- portion and a third light-transmissive sub-portion; and a transmittance of the first light- transmissive sub-portion ranges from 50% to 80%, a transmittance of the second light- transmissive sub-portion ranges from 85% to 95%, and a transmittance of the third light- transmissive sub-portion ranges from 95% to 100%.
Mizumura further discloses the plurality of light- transmissive sub-portions (16, see fig.8B) comprises a first light-transmissive sub-portion (one of opening portion 16 other than 16a-16b, see fig.8B), a second light- transmissive sub-portion (16b, see fig.8) and a third light-transmissive sub-portion (16b, see fig.8); and
a transmittance of the second light-transmissive sub-portion (16b) ranges from 85% to 95% (90.5%, see fig.8B), and a transmittance of the third light-transmissive sub-portion (16c) ranges from 95% to 100% (96.1%, see fig.8B).
Lee in view of Mizumura does not expressly disclose a transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion ranges from 50% to 80%.
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.8B of Mizumura), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa)
In this case Lee in view of Mizumura teaches a certain transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion, and having a specific transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation (See para.0106 of Mizumura: “…(1) changing of the transmittance of the opening portion 16 of the projection mask pattern 15 and (2) adjusting of the size of the opening portion 16 of the projection mask pattern 15 may be performed.”). In this case varying the transmittance of the first light-transmissive sub-portion to set “the energy density of the laser light on the substrate to be substantially uniform, the variation in the energy density applied to the substrate can be reduced” (See para.0087 of Mizumura).
Regarding claim 17, Lee further discloses the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38, see fig.1A-B) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see figs.1A-B) of the mask (40) respectively comprising:
adjusting a position of a movable platform (44, see fig.3A) to align the to-be-soldered devices (38) on a substrate (36, see fig.3A) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42, see figs.3A-B) respectively (See para.0042).
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kasuga US 20040000368 A1
Regarding claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses a substrate (60, see fig.9) is configured for placement of to-be-soldered devices (66, see fig.9), except a movable platform, wherein the substrate is disposed on the movable platform.
Kasuga discloses a manufacturing apparatus and a manufacturing method of manufacturing electronic devices, comprising:
a movable platform (20, see fig.9 and para.108), wherein the substrate (1) is disposed on the movable platform (20, see fig.9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to incorporate the movable platform of Kasuga so as the substrate is disposed on the movable platform as taught by Farnworth. Doing so facilitates attaching the solder balls.
Regarding claim 15, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38,see fig.1A-B) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) of the mask (40) respectively (see figs.1A-1B), except adjusting a position of the movable platform to align the to-be-soldered devices on the substrate with the plurality of light-transmissive portions respectively.
Kasuga further discloses adjusting a position of the movable platform (20, see fig.9) to align the devices (2R, see fig.7) on the substrate (1, see fig.7) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (9) respectively (see fig.7 and para.0100).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the step of “adjusting a position of the movable platform to align the to-be-soldered devices on the substrate with the plurality of light-transmissive portions respectively” as taught by Kasuga. Doing so facilitates attaching the solder balls.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kasuga as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Jywe US 20120156320 A1
Regarding claim 16, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses
before the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) of the mask (40) respectively, further comprising: detecting optically the position of the movable platform, and initializing the position of the movable platform (33, see fig.2A).
Lee does not expressly disclose detecting optically the position of the movable platform.
Jywe discloses a manufacturing-process equipment, comprising:
detecting optically the position of the movable platform (See para.0033-0035).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the step of “detecting optically the position of the movable platform” of Jywe. Doing so allows to detect the position of the platform in order to align the soldered devices with the plurality of light-transmissive portions quickly and accurately.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Mizumura as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Jywe US 20120156320 A1
Regarding claim 18, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, Lee further discloses before the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) of the mask (40) respectively, further comprising: (33, see fig.2A).
Lee does not expressly disclose detecting optically the position of the movable platform.
Jywe discloses a manufacturing-process equipment, comprising:
detecting optically the position of the movable platform (See para.0033-0035).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the step of “detecting optically the position of the movable platform” of Jywe. Doing so allows to detect the position of the platform in order to align the soldered devices with the plurality of light-transmissive portions quickly and accurately.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yutaka as applied to claim 19 and further in view of Jywe US 20120156320 A1
Regarding claim 20, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except before the aligning to-be-soldered devices with the plurality of light-transmissive portions of the mask respectively, further comprising: detecting optically the position of the movable platform, and initializing the position of the movable platform.
Lee further discloses before the aligning to-be-soldered devices (38) with the plurality of light-transmissive portions (42) of the mask (40) respectively, further comprising: detecting optically the position of the movable platform, and initializing the position of the movable platform (33, see fig.2A).
Lee does not expressly disclose detecting optically the position of the movable platform.
Jywe discloses a manufacturing-process equipment, comprising:
detecting optically the position of the movable platform (See para.0033-0035).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to include the step of “detecting optically the position of the movable platform” of Jywe. Doing so allows to detect the position of the platform in order to align the soldered devices with the plurality of light-transmissive portions quickly and accurately.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8448468 B2 discloses a mask for laser sealing a temperature and environmentally sensitive element, such as an OLED device, surrounded by a frit wall between first and second substrates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights