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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “solder ball and chip arrangement” should read –solder-ball-and-chip arrangement--; similarly at claim 1: lines 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 21, and claim 10: line 2.
In claim 1, bridging lines 15 and 16, “solder ball side down orientation” should read –solder-ball-side-down orientation--;
In claim 2, bridging lines 3 and 4, “solder balls to chip arrangement” should read –solder-ball-to-chip arrangement-- (however, see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), below);
In claim 2, line 4, “solder ball and chip assemblies” should read –solder-ball-and-chip assemblies--; similarly in claim 3 (two instances), claim 4: lines 3 and 7, claim 9: line 4;
In claim 6, line 6. “solder ball chip assemblies” should read –solder-ball chip assemblies-- (however, see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)); similarly in claim 7: bridging lines 5 and 6;
In claim 6, line 7, “camera monitored” should read –camera-monitored--;
In claim 7, bridging lines 7 and 8, “solder ball chip assembly” should read –solder-ball chip assembly-- (may be intended to read –solder-ball-and-chip assembly--); similarly in claim 8: line 4;
In claim 7, line 7, “camera monitored location” should read –camera-monitored location--;
In claim 10, bridging lines 2 and 3, “solder bump and chip arrangement” should read –solder-bump-and-chip arrangement--;
In claim 22, lines 4, 6 and 14, “pre-assembled” should read –preassembled--; similarly in claim 28: line 4;
In claim 22, line 9, “vacuum holding” should read –vacuum-holding--;
In claim 22, lines 21 and 22, “any formic acid flow to remove surface oxides and facilitate flow of FormicAcid/N2” should read –formic acid flow to remove surface oxides and facilitate flow of formic acid / N2--;
In claim 28, line 10, “picked up” should read –picked-up--;
In claim 28, bridging lines 11 and 12, “guide camera monitored computer-controlled gang carrier” should read – guide-camera-monitored, computer-controlled gang carrier--.
Appropriate correction is required. Corresponding modifications should also be made to the specification, as appropriate.
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 2-9, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 and 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 2, the phrase “the plurality of solder balls to chip arrangement” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 1 only refers to a single “solder ball and chip arrangement”. Perhaps claim 2 was intended to recite, in part, “heating and bonding the plurality of solder balls to the chip arrangement, forming a plurality of solder-ball-and-chip assemblies”? Clarification is, respectfully, requested.
In claim 4, the phrase “in their inverted orientation” (bridging lines 3 and 4) renders the claim indefinite because the preceding claims do not mention inverting solder-ball-and-chip assemblies. The flipping step of claim 1 applies to a solder-ball-and-chip-arrangement, which is unrelated to the “a plurality of side-by-side solder ball and chip assemblies” introduced in claim 3. Claim 2 mentions “solder ball and chip assemblies”, but claim 2 has issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well, as the structural relationship between the “solder ball and chip arrangement” inverted in the flipping step and the “solder ball and chip assemblies” recited in claim 2 is unclear.
In claim 6, line 6, the phrase “the heated side-by-side solder ball chip assemblies” lacks proper antecedent basis, as claim 3 refers to “heating the plurality of side-by-side solder ball and chip assemblies”. Similarly “the heated side-by-side solder ball chip assemblies” in claim 7: bridging lines 5 and 6. Note that “solder ball chip assembly” (claim 7: bridging lines 7 and 8, and claim 8: line 4) is also a new term.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, multiple terms are used, e.g. “pre-assembled die chips”, “pre-assembled picked-up die chips”, “picked-up die chips” and “die chips”, which causes some confusion as to which particular die chips are recited.
In claim 28, the picking up and delivering steps act on a single preassembled fluxless die chip. The language at lines 18 to 23 renders the claim indefinite because it refers to aligning “the depositing of each inverted preassembled fluxless die chip”. However, there is no step of depositing each inverted preassembled fluxless die chip.
In claim 28, at line 25, the claim refers tp pressing a single preassembled fluxless die chip. It is unclear how this results in “compressing each die chip” (i.e. each of a plurality of chips, presumably inverted preassembled fluxless die chips, but not clear if this is so).
In claim 29, given that claim 28 refers to both a single inverted preassembled fluxless die chip, as well as to plural (“each”) inverted preassembled fluxless die chips and to “each die chip” (claim 28, line 27), it is unclear to which die chip the language “the die chip” (claim 29, lines 3 and 4) refers.
In claim 32, the phrase “the preassembled fluxless die chips on the first donor chuck” and “the preassembled fluxless die chips on the second donor chuck” lacks proper antecedent basis, because the preceding claims do not specifically mention preassembled fluxless die chips on the first donor chuck or the second donor chuck. Specifically, claim 28 mentions a donor chuck arrangement, and claim 31 further clarifies the donor chuck arrangement comprises a first donor chuck and a second donor chuck, but there is no indication there are any die chips on these donor chucks. The donor chuck arrangement could comprise an additional chuck, for example, on which the preassembled fluxless die chips are disposed, or they may be disposed on only one of the first and second donor chuck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 are allowed.
Claim 2-9 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.
Claims 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 and 32 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights