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 .
Election/Restrictions
Regarding the Restriction Requirement mailed 9/17/2025, as only the claims listed in Group I were actually present for examination at the time, restriction should not have been required (see Applicant’s Remarks filed 9/17/2025). All pending claims are hereby examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 22-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, “computer controlled” should read --computer-controlled--;
In claim 4, line 4, “there within” should read --therewithin---
In claim 6, line 3, “computer controlled” should read --computer-controlled--;
In claim 22, line 1, “ganged assembly” should read --ganged assemblies--;
In claim 23, “FA” should be changed to clarify it refers to formic acid. “N2” and “O2” should be amended to read --N2-- and --O2--, respectively. Corresponding changes should also be made to the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 23-25 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 9, it is unclear what is meant by “gang carrier the monitored”;
In claim 2, the claim limitation “the solder balls to their respective chips” renders the claim indefinite, because claim 1 does not mention the solder ball and chip arrangement comprises plural chips, each with plural solder balls.
In claim 6, line 4, the limitation “the solder ball chip assemblies” lacks proper antecedent basis;
In claim 6, line 5, “the receiver substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 1 refers to a “receiver chuck substrate”;
In claim 7, line 2, it is unclear what is meant by “arranging a the displaceable spindle”;
In claim 7, line 3, the limitation “the … solder ball chip assemblies” lacks proper antecedent basis;
In claim 7, line 5, “the receiver substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 1 refers to a “receiver chuck substrate”;
In claim 9, line 2, the limitation “the receiver chuck” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 1 refers to a “receiver chuck substrate”;
In claim 9, bridging lines 2 and 3, the limitation “the … solder ball chip assemblies” lacks proper antecedent basis;
In claim 9, line 3, “the receiver substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 1 refers to a “receiver chuck substrate”;
In claim 23, line 3 and last line, the limitation “the gang carrier” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 23 elsewhere refers to a “gang die chip carrier”;
In claim 24, the limitation “the vacuum bonding” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 22 recites securing of the die chips … by a vacuum holding arrangement”;
In claim 28, line 6, the limitation “delivering the preassembled die chip in the aligned manner” is unclear, as claim 28 does not recite any aligning;
In claim 28, lines 9 and 11, the limitation “the inverted die chip assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis;
In claim 28, last line, the limitation “the receiver chuck” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 28 recited “a receiving chuck” at line 9;
In claim 30, line 5, “the receiver substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis;
In claim 30, line 5, “the control computer” lacks proper antecedent basis;
In claim 31, the limitation “the second donor chuck” lacks proper antecedent basis;
In claim 32, lines 2 and 3, it is unclear what is meant by “and wherein the second donor chuck, and”
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 –
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makino (US2007/0039686A1).
Claim 22. A process for the deposition of ganged assembly of chip die sets on a receiving wafer, comprising:
picking up pre-assembled die chips (14 with 14a) serially (see [0080] and Fig. 5B), from a source supply wafer (sheet 12 with plural chips 14 thereon, Fig. 1) by a gripper mechanism (17, Figs. 2 and 5B);
loading (see Fig. 6B and [0081]) the pre-assembled picked-up die chips onto an elongated gang die chip carrier (21, Figs. 6B and 3A);
inverting (Figs. 7A to 9A; see [0082]) the elongated gang die chip carrier with its preassembled picked-up die chips thereon; and
depositing (Fig. 10B and [0084]) the pre-assembled picked-up die chips, upside down from the orientation in which they were picked up by the gripper mechanism, onto a receiver substrate (27, Figs. 1, 2 and 19B) on a receiving chuck (26, Figs. 1 and 2) for final assembly thereon.
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.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino.
Makino discloses the claimed invention as follows (limitations not disclosed are crossed out, below):
Claim 28. The fluxless manufacture of an integrated circuit for the computer industry, comprising the steps:
providing (see [0079]) a fluxless array of pre-assembled die chips (14 with 14a; see Fig. 1) on a donor chuck (11, Figs. 1 and 2) arrangement;
picking up a preassembled die chip (14, Fig. 5B and [0080]) from the donor chuck arrangement by a gripper (17, Fig. 2 and 5B), under guidance from a first connected camera (3, Figs. 2 and 5A; see [0079]) connected to a control computer1;
delivering the preassembled die chip in the aligned manner, by the gripper onto a
rotationally moving the gang carrier (see Figs. 7A to 9A; see [0082]) so as to invert the preassembled die chip thereon;
depositing (Fig. 10B and [0084]) the inverted die chip assembly onto a receiving chuck (26, Fig. 1 and 2), guided positionally by a further guide camera (19, Fig. 2 and 10A); and
controllably pressing the inverted die chip assembly by a computer-controlled (see footnote 1) compression rod assembly (20, Fig. 10B), thereby compressing each die chip against a receiver substrate supported on the receiver chuck so as to comprise the integrated circuit.
Claim 29. The fluxless manufacture of an integrated circuit as recited in claim 28, comprising:
suctioning the die chip on the gang carrier (see Figs. 3A to 4C and 7A to 9A; see [0072] and [0073]) during the rotational movement and inversion of the die chip thereon.
Makino discloses the claimed invention, except for the gang carrier being monitored by a guide camera.
Makino already discloses a camera 3 monitoring the chips at chip feed unit 2 area and a camera 19 for monitoring a chip mounting position on a substrate 27.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to add an additional camera, to monitor the chips being placed on gang carrier 38, to ensure proper component placement to or pick-up from the gang carrier 38. Such a modification would have had predictable results, i.e. detecting mounting/pick-up problems at the chip reversing device 5.
Claim(s) 22, 28, 29, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino in view of Kim (KR20200060558A).
The term “chuck” is understood to refer to a holder. However, if Applicant disagrees Makino discloses the claimed donor and receiver/receiving chuck, such features are conventional. Kim discloses a bonding apparatus in which chips D are cut from a wafer W and held on a support unit 110 (see Figs. 5 and 7), and the apparatus is used to pick up and bond dies to a substrate MW held on a bonding stage 120 (see Figs. 5 and 7). Kim teaches the support unit 110 and the bonding stage 120 may include a chuck for supporting the semiconductor wafer W (and the dies D) and the substrate MW. See [0044].
In view of the teachings of Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the apparatus of Makino with a chuck for holding chips 14 (i.e. a donor chuck), and to hold the substrate 27 on a receiving/receiver chuck, as alternative chip and substrate holders, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide a second donor chuck, to increase the supply component capacity of the apparatus, with predictable results. Moreover, whether to supply the second donor chuck with components of the same size or of a different size would have ben obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 23-25 and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 Control computer is not explicitly disclosed. However, pick-and-place machines are extremely complex devices which cannot operate without a controller.