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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoh (U.S. Patent No. 6,102,273).
Regarding claim 1, Satoh discloses a device configured to bond a semiconductor chip on a substrate (Abstract, FIGS 1A-1B of Satoh, die bonding apparatus), the device comprising: a bonding head configured to be on the semiconductor chip (FIG. 1B of Satoh, bonding head #7; 5:7-11 of Satoh, bonding head configured to hold semiconductor pellet #35a); a substrate support configured to support the substrate (FIG. 1A of Satoh, work placing table #6 which supports semiconductor device package #33); a dam member configured to surround an edge of the bonding head and to contact an upper side of the substrate (FIG. 1B of Satoh, hold down member #3 which contacts top of semiconductor device package #33 on table #6 creating an opening around semiconductor pellet #35a and gas injecting heads #1a #1b; FIG. 2 of Satoh, gas injecting heads #1a #1b for enclosed space around bonding head #7 and therefore act as a dam); and a gas blower configured to be spaced apart from and over the substrate support, to be between the bonding head and the dam member, and to supply gas towards the substrate (FIGS. 1A-1B of Satoh, gas nozzles #2a #2b which are spaced apart from and over the table #6 between bonding head #7 and hold-down members #3 and which supply gas toward semiconductor device package #33 via gas injecting heads #1a #1b).
Regarding claim 2, Satoh discloses that the dam member includes a gas control member configured to contact the upper side of the substrate and to control a direction of the gas, and a support portion above the gas control member, the support portion configured to fix the gas control member to the substrate (FIG. 1B of Satoh, dam includes hold down member #3 which contacts semiconductor device package #33 which include gas nozzles #2a #2b which control direction of flow).
Regarding claim 10, Satoh does not specifically disclose that a temperature of the gas is in a range of 150 ℃ to 250 ℃. As set forth in the MPEP, however, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements (MPEP § 2115). Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). (MPEP §2115). The examiner notes that the device of Satoh is capable of operating at high temperatures (5:1-5 of Satoh, work placing table #6 heated to 320 ℃) and would therefore be capable of supplying gas at the recited temperature range.
Regarding claim 11, Satoh does not specifically disclose that the substrate support is configured to heat the substrate to a temperature in a range of 50 ℃ to 150 ℃. Satoh, however, discloses that the substrate support can be heated to temperatures of 320 ℃ (5:1-5 of Satoh). Satoh therefore clearly teaches a temperature range (i.e., up to 320 ℃) that overlaps with that recited in claim 11 (i.e., 50-150 ℃) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, Satoh discloses that the gas blower is configured to supply an inert gas (4:21-25 of Satoh, inert gas supplied to gas nozzles).
Regarding claim 13, Satoh discloses that the gas blower includes first to fourth spray portions surrounding the bonding head, and the first to fourth spray portions have a bar shape including a long side and a short side (FIG. 2 of Satoh, inner bar shaped portions of each gas injecting head can be further subdivided into smaller bar shaped portions).
Regarding claim 14, Satoh discloses that the first to fourth portions are configured with a plurality of blowing holes, and the blowing holes are in a lattice (FIGS. 1B and 2 of Satoh, each bar shaped portion includes a plurality of gas nozzles arranged in lattice form of multiple nozzles in a plurality of layers).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh in view of Fujimori et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2003-203933 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 8, Satoh does not specifically disclose that the dam member comprises at least one of silicon, fluorine, or a compound thereof. Fujimori, however, discloses using a fluororesin or a silicone resin as a dam material for a semiconductor bonding device (Abstract, [0065] of Fujimori). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fluororesin or a silicone resin as the dam material in the device of Satoh since Fujimori establishes that it was known to use such dam materials in semiconductor bonding devices. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh in view of Lim et al. (“High throughput thermo-compression bonding with pre-applied underfill for 3D memory applications”, 2016 IEEE 18th Electronics Packaging technology Conference, pp. 427-434, 2016).
Regarding claim 9, Satoh does not specifically disclose that the bonding head includes a heater portion, and the heater portion is configured to heat the bonding head to a temperature of 250 ℃ or more. Lim, however, discloses using a heated bonding head in a chip bonding device wherein the bonding head is capable of heating to a temperature of 370 ℃ (Abstract, pg. 430, right hand column of Lim). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bonding head having a heater portion configured to heat the bonding head to a temperature of 370 ℃ since Lim establishes that it was known to use such a bonding head in semiconductor bonding devices. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-7 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.
Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art is to Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0111160 A1). Kim discloses a device configured to bond a semiconductor chip on a substrate (FIG. 6F of Kim, bonding head #BH and dam #600 configured to bond chip #110 to substrate #500) and to limit a non-conductive film filet from spreading ([0061] of Kim, dam prevents overflow of NCF), the device comprising: a bonding head configured to heat-pressurize the semiconductor chip (FIG. 6F of Kim, bonding head #BH; [0107] of Kim, heat and pressure applied by bonding head); and a dam member (FIG. 6F of Kim, dam #600). While Sakata (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0260680 A1) provides motivation to support the substrate on a heated stage during bonding (Abstract, [0089]-[0090] of Sakata), neither Kim, Sakata nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a device as recited in claim 15, the dam member including a gas control member and a support portion, the gas control member configured to surround the bonding head, to contact an upper side of the substrate, and including a slant portion with an angle with respect to the substrate, and the support portion on the gas control member and configured to fix the gas control member to the substrate; and a gas blower configured to be spaced apart from and over the substrate support, to be between the bonding head and the dam member, and to supply gas of 150 ℃ or more towards the substrate.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art is also to Kim. Kim discloses a method for bonding a semiconductor chip (FIG. 6F of Kim, bonding head #BH and dam #600 configured to bond chip #110 to substrate #500) comprising: using a bonding head to position a semiconductor chip on a substrate such that a non-conductive film of the semiconductor chip is between the semiconductor chip and the substrate (FIG. 6F of Kim, bonding head #BH configured to bond chip #110 to substrate #500 via non-conductive film #150); positioning a dam member to surround the semiconductor chip such that dam member is spaced apart from an edge of the semiconductor chip and contacts an upper side of the substrate (FIG. 6F of Kim, dam #600 surrounds chip #110); bonding the semiconductor chip to the substrate by providing heat and pressure to the semiconductor chip ([0107] of Kim, heat and pressure applied by bonding head). Neither Kim, however, nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a method as recited in claim 19 comprising spraying gas along at least one side of the dam member, the at least one side of the dam member being between the semiconductor chip and the dam member.
The prior art as a whole therefore fails to teach or reasonably suggest the totality of the invention as defined by claims 15 and 19. In the absence of further prior art guidance, it would not have been obvious to arrive at the invention of claims 15 and 19 without impermissible hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, the invention defined by each of claims 15 and 19 is deemed non-obvious. Claims 16-18 depend from claim 15 and are therefore also deemed non-obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 15. Claims 20 depends from claim 19 and are therefore also deemed non-obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 19.
Regarding claims 3-5, the closest prior art is to Satoh. Satoh discloses a device as recited in claim 2 (See analysis of claim 2 above). Neither Satoh nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a device wherein: one side of the gas control member facing the semiconductor chip has a slant, and the one side includes a curve or a plane as recited in claim 3; an area of the gas control member in a cross-sectional view gradually increases when approaching to the substrate as recited in claim 4; or the gas control member includes a protrusion, and the protrusion has a slant portion having an angle with respect to the substrate as recited in claim 5. Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 5 and are therefore also directed to allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights