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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to a claim of domestic priority to a 371 National Stage application of PCT/EP2021/078918 filed on October 19th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on March 13th, 2024 and November 17th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species C, corresponding to Claims 1-5, 8, 11-14, and 17-19, drawn to Figures 3a-3f and the “third method” of preparing electronic components described in paragraphs [0081]-[0086] of the specification in the reply filed on June 8th, 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is made FINAL, claims 1-5, 8, and 11-19 are being examined on their merits and all non-elected claims (i.e. claims 6-7, and 9-10) are withdrawn from consideration at this time.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 3 recites “the first component surface of the components”. This limitation lacks explicit antecedent basis in the claim, but does not render the claim indefinite. The claim should be amended to recite “a first component surface of the components” instead of “the first component surface of the components”.
Claim 13, lines 1-3 recite “before the separating of the substrate, the first substrate is provided with the first substrate surface with the protective layer on the second substrate,”. This limitation in the first clause is already recited in claim 8. The claim should be amended to read only “The method according to claim 8, wherein, before the removing of the protective layer, the components are taken with the first component surface over by a pick-and-place tool and fixed on the pick-and-place tool.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A device for the production and preparation of electronic components” in claim 15.
“surface treatment means for implementation of a surface treatment of a first substrate surface of a first substrate” in claim 15.
“means for application of a protective layer on the treated first substrate…” in claim 15.
“separation means for the separation (functional language) of the first substrate into components” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8, 11, and 13-16 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.
Regarding claim 8;
The limitation "…the second substrate" is recited in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and its intervening claim 1.
It is unclear what the applicant specifically defines as a “second substrate” in the context of the claim (e.g. a film/sheet used for the transferring/moving of the first substrate, a substrate for further component preparation, another protective film layer, etc.).
For the purposes of this action, the claim limitation “the second substrate” will be interpreted to mean a substrate that the first substrate is temporarily bonded to during processing as disclosed in the applicant’s specification. See In re Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008).
Regarding claim 13;
The deficiencies of the intervening claim 8 are inherited by claim 13 therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 14;
The deficiencies of the intervening claims 8 and 13 are inherited by claim 14 therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 15;
The claim limitation “means for application of a protective layer on the treated first substrate…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. [0042]-[0043] of applicant’s disclosure states “…the coating module forms the means for the application of a protective layer…”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood what type of structure is required to perform the coating process (e.g. whether a specific type of deposition apparatus is required) as the specification is silent to what the applicant specifically qualifies as a “means for application of a protective layer…” therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 16;
The deficiencies of the intervening claim 15 are inherited by claim 16 therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei et al. (US9159624B1).
Regarding claim 1;
Lei et al. teaches A method for the production and preparation of electronic components (e.g. Detailed description “FIGS. 1A-1I illustrate cross-sectional views representing various operations in a method of dicing a semiconductor wafer including a plurality of integrated circuits…”), comprising: i.) preparing a first substrate (e.g. Fig. 1A ref 100, Detailed description “Referring to FIG. 1A, a wafer 100 is provided.”), with a first substrate surface and a second substrate surface (see examiner markup), ii.) implementing, after the preparing of the first substrate, a surface treatment on the first substrate surface (e.g. Fig. 1B ref 102, Detailed description “…cleaning solution 102 may first be applied to a front side of the wafer 100 to prepare an ultra-clean surface for subsequent lamination, as is depicted in FIG. 1B.”), iii.) applying, after implementing of the surface treatment, a protective layer on the treated first substrate surface (e.g. Fig. 1C ref 104, Detailed description “Referring to FIG. 1C, a polymeric mask layer 104 is dry film vacuum laminated onto the wafer 100 front side.”), and iv.) separating, after the applying of the protective layer, the substrate into components (e.g. Fig. 1G ref 114, Detailed description “A plasma etch operation is then performed to singulate individual dies 114, such as individual integrated circuits, as is depicted in FIG. 1G”).
PNG
media_image1.png
172
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2;
Lei et al. further teaches that the implementing of the surface treatment comprises one or more of cleaning the first substrate surface, a plasma treatment of the first substrate surface, and coating of the first substrate surface (e.g. Fig. 1B ref 102, Detailed description “…cleaning solution 102 may first be applied to a front side of the wafer 100 to prepare an ultra-clean surface for subsequent lamination, as is depicted in FIG. 1B.”).
Regarding claim 3;
Lei et al. further teaches that the cleaning of the first substrate surface comprises one or more of chemical cleaning and physical cleaning of the first substrate surface (e.g. Fig. 1B ref 102, Detailed description “a solvent- or aqueous-based cleaning solution 102 may first be applied to a front side of the wafer 100 to prepare an ultra-clean surface for subsequent lamination, as is depicted in FIG. 1B.”).
Regarding claim 5;
Lei et al. further teaches in figure 1G that after separating of the substrate, each of the components comprises a first component surface and a second component surface, and wherein the protective layer is applied on the first component surface of each of the components (see examiner markup).
PNG
media_image2.png
167
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8;
Lei et al. further teaches in figure 1E that before the separating of the substrate, the first substrate is provided with the first substrate surface with the protective layer on the second substrate (e.g. Fig. 1E ref 108, Detailed description “the wafer 100′ and mask 104 pairing is mounted on a substrate carrier 106. The substrate carrier 106 may include a dicing tape 108 supported by a tape frame 110, as is depicted in FIG. 1E.”).
Regarding claim 11;
Lei et al. further teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: removing, after the separating of the substrate, the protective layer from the first component surface of the components (e.g. Fig. 1H, Detailed description “FIG. 1H, the patterned mask 112 is removed from the individual dies 114.”).
Regarding claim 15;
Lei et al. teaches a device for the production and preparation of electronic components (e.g. Fig. 12 ref 1200, Detailed description “…FIG. 12 illustrates a block diagram of a tool layout for laser and plasma dicing of wafers or substrates…”), comprising: surface treatment means for implementation of a surface treatment of a first substrate surface of a first substrate (e.g. Fig. 12 ref 1214, Detailed description “a wet/dry station 1214 is included. The wet/dry station may be suitable for cleaning residues and fragments, or for removing a mask subsequent to a laser scribe and plasma etch singulation process of a substrate or wafer.”), and means for application of a protective layer on the treated first substrate surface after the implementation of the surface treatment by the surface treatment means (e.g. Fig. 12, Detailed description “Cluster tool 1206 may include other chambers suitable for performing functions in a method of singulation…a metrology station is also included as a component of process tool 1200”).
Regarding claim 16;
Lei et al. teaches that the device for the production and preparation of electronic components further comprises: separation means for the separation of the first substrate into components (e.g. Fig. 12 ref 1210, Detailed description “…the laser scribe apparatus 1210 houses a femtosecond-based laser. The femtosecond-based laser is suitable for performing a laser ablation portion of a hybrid laser and etch singulation process…”).
Regarding claim 18;
Lei et al. further teaches that the second substrate is a film (e.g. Ref 108, Detailed description “The substrate carrier 106 may include a dicing tape 108 supported by a tape frame 110…”).
Regarding claim 19;
Lei et al. further teaches that the film has an adhesive layer (Fig. 11A ref 1108, Detailed description “The polymeric dry film laminated mask layer, device layer, and substrate are disposed above a die attach film 1108 which is affixed to a backing tape 1110.”), and the first substrate is fixed on the adhesive layer (see examiner markup).
PNG
media_image3.png
358
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (US9159624B1) in view of Suga et al. (US9142532B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 4;
Lei et al. teaches the method for the production and preparation of electronic components of claim 1.
Lei et al. is silent to the coating of the first substrate surface takes place with water for hydrophilisation of the first substrate surface as claimed.
However, Suga et al. teaches a Chip-on-wafer bonding method with a hydrophilizing treatment step for improving bonding between metal features (e.g. Fig. 1 ref S1, S2; Detailed description “The hydrophilizing treatment is conducted by supplying water onto the surface-activated bond surfaces. The supply of water may be attained by introducing water (H2O) into an atmosphere around the surface-activated bond surfaces. Water may be introduced thereto in the form of gas (in the form of gas or steam), or may be introduced in the form of liquid (fog). In another embodiment of the adhesion of water, radicals or ionized OH groups or the like may be caused to adhere. However, the water-introducing method is not limited to these embodiments”)
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaning step of the method taught in Lei et al. to perform the hydrophilizing treatment step taught in Suga et al. to improve bonding between adjacent material layers (e.g. the first substrate surface and the protective film layer subsequently deposited in Lei et al.) because it will predictably improve the mechanical integrity of the resulting bonds (e.g. Detailed description “ in the hydrophilizing treatment after the surface activating treatment is conducted, water or a substance containing hydroxyl (OH) groups is supplied to the new-generation surface, which is made naked by the surface activating treatment. When water or the substance containing hydroxyl (OH) groups contacts the new-generation surface, which is made naked by the surface activating treatment, a layer 44 of the hydroxyl groups is formed on the new-generation surface (FIG. 2( c)), or a layer of an oxide of the material which forms the new-generation surface is formed on the new-generation surface. When water is further supplied thereto, water appears to adhere onto the formed hydroxide group layer or the oxide layer.”).
Claim 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lei et al. (US9159624B1) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 12;
Lei et al. teaches the method for the production and preparation of electronic components of claims 1 and 11, wherein the removing of the protective layer is carried out under a vacuum (e.g. Detailed description “…removing the polymeric dry film laminated mask layer 1102 from the device layer 1104, e.g., by an O2-based plasma cleaning process.”).
In the alternative, even though Lei et al. does not explicitly teach that the removal of the protective layer is carried out under vacuum conditions, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing that the removal of the protective layer by a plasma cleaning process would be carried out under vacuum because doing so would reduce the possibility of particles generated during the singulation process from contaminating the singulated semiconductor chips prior to encapsulation/further packaging.
Regarding claim 17;
Lei et al. teaches the method for the production and preparation of electronic components of claims 1 and 2, wherein the surface treatment step comprises cleaning the first substrate surface by sputtering (e.g. Fig. 1B ref 102, Detailed description “a solvent- or aqueous-based cleaning solution 102 may first be applied to a front side of the wafer 100 to prepare an ultra-clean surface for subsequent lamination, as is depicted in FIG. 1B.”).
In the alternative, even though Lei et al. does not explicitly teach that the cleaning of the first substrate surface is carried out via sputtering, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing as a matter of common sense that cleaning step taught in Lei et al. could be performed by sputtering because sputtering is one of a finite set of ways known within the art to apply thin liquid layers/coatings/films to materials, fulfilling the role of applying a cleaning solution to a first substrate surface. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ROBERT MANN whose telephone number is (571)270-0210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 0800-1800 EST.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/WILLIAM ROBERT MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights