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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the inflection point," “the inflection points” and “the curvatures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Examiner notes that an inflection point of a sigmoid is described after citing “the inflection point” of what would be expected to be the region of interest. Examiner further notes that each edge of the quadrangular alignment mark is fitted to a sigmoid function, each sigmoid function having a corresponding inflection point and a curvature.
For examination purposes, “the inflection point”, “the inflection points” and “the curvatures” are interpreted as being inflection points and curvatures of the described sigmoid functions.
Claims 10-14 are further rejected due to their dependence on claim 9 and lack of further clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (WO 2017169953 A1) in further view of Shinoda (JP 6195253 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Terada teaches a mounting method comprising:
detecting an alignment mark position (5a, 5b of a first object (4): and
bonding the first object to a second object (2) based on a position of the alignment mark:
wherein the alignment mark position detecting method comprising:
capturing an image of a region comprising an alignment mark (see described “two-view camera 30 for recognizing an image of an alignment mark attached to the chip component 4 and the wafer 2 and a control unit for controlling the entire mounting apparatus 1.”) and processing position information of alignment marks on the first object and second object in the control unit to control mounting accuracy and performing a bonding operation based upon the position of the alignment mark (see Abstract).
Terada is silent regarding specific processing details during the alignment mark position detecting method.
Shinoda teaches a method of edge detection which captures an image (31) having a luminance profile (having “a multi-gradation image…the captured image 31 has gradation values of 0 to 255”, see also [0032]) and fitting the luminance profile to a fitting function (PSF), the fitting function comprising a sigmoid function (51, see [0034]) represented by equation:
f
x
=
1
1
+
e
-
w
x
Wherein the sigmoid function has an inflection point and a curvature (see [0036]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the image processing and alignment method of Shinoda to the mounting method of Terada to improve “detection sensitivity of the edge portion” (see [0047] and [0055]).
Specifically, as applied to Terada, this modification would teach the alignment mark position detecting method further comprising:
obtaining a luminance profile of the image; and
detecting a position of the alignment mark by fitting a fitting function to the luminance profile of the image, wherein the fitting function comprises a sigmoid function having an inflection point and a curvature.
Regarding Claim 2, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 1, wherein the inflection point of the fitting function corresponds to an edge position of the alignment mark (see Shinoda: [0034] and Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 2, further comprising detecting a center position of the alignment mark based on the edge position of the alignment mark (see Shinoda: [0061-0064] which describes detecting four edges 23a-23d in order to determine a center pixel 71 via the values of PSF-TOP, PSF-BOTTOM, PSF-L and PSL-R, which are values obtained by four sigmoid functions of four edges of the alignment pattern).
Regarding Claim 4, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 3, further comprising wherein, with respect to a first direction (horizontal) and a second direction different from the first direction (vertical):
calculating the center position of the alignment mark in a first direction as a midpoint of a first plurality of edge positions (23c and 23d, see [0063-0064 and Figs. 14-16 of Shinoda) of the alignment mark that are spaced apart from each other in the first direction, and
calculating the center position of the alignment mark in a second direction different from the first direction as a midpoint of a second plurality of edge positions (23a and 23b) of the alignment mark that are spaced apart from each other in the second direction (shown Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 5, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 1, wherein the fitting function comprises a plurality of inflection points and a plurality of curvatures (see [0063] which describes four sigmoid functions being implemented).
Regarding Claim 6, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 1,
wherein the obtaining of the luminance profile comprises obtaining a luminance profile of a region comprising a region of interest (ROI) (region comprising the alignment mark),
wherein at least a portion of the ROI comprises the alignment mark (see Terada: Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 6, wherein the ROI comprises a plurality of regions having different luminance levels (the alignment mark of Terada being “attached to the lower layer workpiece” would create a different luminance level on the alignment mark than on the surface of the lower workpiece).
Regarding Claim 8, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 1, wherein luminance of the alignment mark is different from luminance of a region adjacent to the alignment mark (the alignment mark of Terada being “attached to the lower layer workpiece” would create a different luminance level on the alignment mark than on the surface of the lower workpiece).
Regarding Claim 15, Terada teaches a mounting method (see Terada: Fig. 1) comprising:
holding and supporting a first object (4) to be bonded by a bonding head (10);
holding and supporting a second object (2) to be bonded by a bonding stage (20);
inserting an upper and lower dual field-of-view (FOV) optical system (30) between the first and second objects to be bonded (see Fig. 1);
capturing images of a first alignment mark on the first object and a second alignment mark on the second object using a single image sensor in the upper and lower dual FOV optical system (see Terada: Abstract);
detecting a position of each of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark; and
bonding the first object and the second object to each other using the position of each of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (see Terada: Abstract),
wherein detecting the position of each of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark comprises:
capturing an image of regions that comprise the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (see Terada: Abstract).
Terada is silent regarding specific processing details during the alignment mark position detecting method.
Shinoda teaches a method of edge detection which captures an image (31) having a luminance profile (having “a multi-gradation image…the captured image 31 has gradation values of 0 to 255”, see also [0032]) and fitting the luminance profile to a fitting function (PSF), the fitting function comprising a sigmoid function (51, see [0034]) represented by equation:
f
x
=
1
1
+
e
-
w
x
Wherein the sigmoid function has an inflection point and a curvature (see [0036]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the image processing and alignment method of Shinoda to the mounting method of Terada to improve “detection sensitivity of the edge portion” (see [0047] and [0055]).
Specifically, as applied to Terada, this modification would teach the alignment mark position detecting method further comprising:
obtaining a luminance profile of the image; and
detecting a position of the alignment mark by fitting a fitting function to the luminance profile of the image, wherein the fitting function comprises a sigmoid function having an inflection point.
Regarding Claim 16, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 15, wherein detecting the position of each of the first and second alignment marks comprises:
calculating an edge position of each of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark based on the inflection point of the fitting function (see Shinoda: [0060-0062]); and
calculating a center position of each of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark based on an edge position of each of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (see Shinoda: [0060-0062]).
Regarding Claim 18, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 15, further comprising:
detecting misalignment between the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark; and
adjusting the misalignment between the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (see Terada: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 18,
wherein the detecting of the misalignment comprises calculating a distance between a center position of the first alignment mark and a center position of the second alignment mark (as modified by Shinoda: see [0060-0062]), and
wherein the distance between the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark is calculated based on a horizontal distance between the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (see Terada: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 20, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 15, wherein the luminance profile comprises a plurality of regions having different luminance levels (see Shinoda: [0042]).
Claims 9-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (WO 2017169953 A1) in further view of Shinoda (JP 6195253 B2) and Deptuch (Direct Electron Imaging in Electron Microscopy with Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors, 2007).
Regarding Claim 9, Terada teaches a mounting method comprising:
capturing an image of a region comprising an alignment mark on a first object (see described “two-view camera 30 for recognizing an image of an alignment mark attached to the chip component 4 and the wafer 2 and a control unit for controlling the entire mounting apparatus 1.”);
bonding a second object to the first object based on a detected edge position of the alignment mark (see Terada: Abstract),
the image comprising a profile (see Fig. 4), in a first direction (horizontal), of a region of interest (ROI) (region corresponding to alignment mark 5a) comprising a first region, a second region, and a third region (left of mark, on mark and right of mark respectively)
wherein the second region comprises the alignment mark.
Terada is silent regarding specific processing details during the alignment mark position detecting method.
Shinoda teaches a method of edge detection which captures an image (31) having a luminance profile (having “a multi-gradation image…the captured image 31 has gradation values of 0 to 255”, see also [0032]) and fitting the luminance profile to a fitting function (PSF), the fitting function comprising a sigmoid function (51, see [0034]) represented by equation:
f
x
=
1
1
+
e
-
w
x
Wherein the sigmoid function has an inflection point and a curvature (see [0036]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the image processing and alignment method of Shinoda to the mounting method of Terada to improve “detection sensitivity of the edge portion” (see [0047] and [0055]).
Specifically, as applied to Terada, this modification would teach the alignment mark position detecting method further comprising:
acquiring a luminance profile of the ROI;
fitting a fitting function to the luminance profile of the ROI to detect an edge position of the alignment mark from the inflection point, wherein the fitting function comprises a sigmoid function having an inflection point (see Shinoda: [0063]).
Shinoda teaches that a sigmoid function is used in the approximation of the profile of the edge pattern, and that four sigmoid functions are used in total to accurately align a detected mark to a luminance profile (see [0063]). Shinoda does not explicitly teach the fitting function comprising:
f
x
=
1
1
+
e
-
(
x
-
u
1
a
1
)
+
1
1
+
e
-
(
x
-
u
2
a
2
)
b
+
c
Wherein u1 and u2 represent inflection points and a1 and a2 represent curvatures, and b and c represent constants. Examiner notes that the expression above is a sum of two sigmoid functions.
Deptuch teaches a method of fitting an edge to a sum of two sigmoid curves (see section 4.3) which allows for stable and precise fitting of a detected edge profile with short readout time (see Conclusions).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement a statistical model using the sum of two sigmoid curves as described by Deptuch to the alignment mark detection method of Shinoda as applied to Terada as this would ensure accurate edge detection with “stable and precise fitting” while further allowing for short readout time (see Deptuch: sections 4.3 and 5. Conclusions).
As applied to Terada and Shinoda, the sum of two sigmoid curves each having their own corresponding inflection point and curvature (see as applied by Shinoda: [0063]) would be used as a fitting function to the luminance profile in the alignment mark detection method.
Regarding Claim 10, Terada as modified by Shinoda and Deptuch teaches the mounting method of claim 9, further comprising detecting a center position of the alignment mark based on the edge position of the alignment mark (as applied by Shinoda, see [0061-0064]).
Regarding Claim 11, Terada as modified by Shinoda and Deptuch teaches the mounting method of claim 10,
wherein the second region has a quadrangular shape (see Shinoda: Fig. 14, which shows an alignment mark corresponding to the second region being quadrangular) with sides in the first direction and sides in a second direction that intersect the first direction (shown Shinoda: Fig. 14), and
wherein the detecting of the center position of the alignment mark comprises calculating a first center position of the alignment mark in the first direction based on the edge position detected in the first direction and calculating a second center position of the alignment mark in the second direction based on the edge position detected in the second direction (see Shinoda: [0061-0062]).
Regarding Claim 12, Terada as modified by Shinoda and Deptuch teaches the mounting method of claim 9, wherein the acquiring of the luminance profile comprises acquiring the luminance profile of the ROI in a maximum range that satisfies at least one of a condition that an error between the luminance profile and the fitting function is less than or equal to a certain value and a condition that a calculation time for detecting the edge position is less than or equal to a certain time (see Shinoda: [0026] which describes integrating a time delay integration sensor and [0037] describing the approximation of error between the sigmoid function and luminance profile).
Regarding Claim 13, Terada as modified by Shinoda and Deptuch teaches the mounting method of claim 12, wherein the image includes a fourth region (corresponding to a different alignment mark, see Shinoda: Fig. 1 showing a plurality of marks 22) having higher luminance or lower luminance than the first region and the third region (corresponding to regions of surface 21 shown Fig. 1) positioned around the second region, and the fourth region corresponds to another mark (shown Shinoda: Fig. 1), wherein, when the ROI comprises the fourth region, the error between the luminance profile and the fitting function becomes greater than the certain value (see Shinoda: [0027]).
Regarding Claim 14, Terada as modified by Shinoda and Deptuch teaches the mounting method of claim 9,
wherein the ROI comprises a first edge portion having an edge of the alignment mark between the first region and the second region on one side of the first region and a second edge portion having the edge between the first region and the second region on another side of the first region (see Shinoda: Fig. 14 and [0057]), and
wherein the fitting function comprises a first sigmoid function having the inflection point and the curvature of the first edge portion and a second sigmoid function having the inflection point and the curvature of the second edge portion (see Shinoda: [0057] and [0063]).
Regarding Claim 17, Terada as modified by Shinoda teaches the mounting method of claim 15, wherein the fitting function comprises a plurality of sigmoid functions (see Shinoda: [0063]). Shinoda as applied to Terada does not explicitly teach the fitting function comprising a sum of a plurality of sigmoid functions.
Deptuch teaches a method of fitting an edge to a sum of two sigmoid curves (see section 4.3) which allows for stable and precise fitting of a detected edge profile with short readout time (see Conclusions).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to implement a statistical model using the sum of two sigmoid curves as described by Deptuch to the alignment mark detection method of Shinoda as applied to Terada as this would ensure accurate edge detection with “stable and precise fitting” while further allowing for short readout time (see Deptuch: sections 4.3 and 5. Conclusions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/C.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights