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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6, the term “each workpiece” should be re-written as –the workpiece--, as applicant indicates earlier in the claim that there is a workpiece (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APIC YAMADA CORP (KR 20140092381 (A); hereinafter “YAMADA”) in view of Fujitsu Automation (JPH 1079362 A; hereinafter “Fujitsu”).
Regarding claim 1, YAMADA teaches:
a resin sealing device, which is a compression molding type resin sealing device configured to seal an electronic component of a workpiece comprising a substrate and the electronic component with resin (see Yamada - [0001]-[0122]; see Figs. 1-22 pertaining to compression molding type resin sealing apparatus), the resin sealing device comprising:
a resin sealing mold (“press unit 21” for resin-sealing electronic components by compression molding a resin material with respect to a workpiece; Figs. 1-22; [0035]), configured to seal the electronic component with resin by compression molding a resin material on the workpiece; and
a resin amount calculation portion (“measurement unit 15” that is used for adjusting to increase or decrease the amount of resin supplied from the resin supply unit (12) according to the number of mounted electronic component or thickness; [0028]-[0029]), configured to calculate, for each workpiece, a resin amount of the resin material to be supplied to the workpiece based on a mounting state of the electronic component in the workpiece,
wherein the resin material comprises a first resin and a second resin (27a, 27b; The resin includes a base resin portion 27a and a high middle resin portion 27b resin portion 27b, where the base resin portion and the high-middle resin portion are granular resins), the second resin is a granulated resin, a powdered resin, or a liquid resin ([0030]-0032]) and a supply amount of at least the second resin among the first resin and the second resin is determined for each workpiece based on the resin amount calculated by the resin amount calculation portion ([0029]-[0032],[0078]-0092]).
However, YAMADA fail to teach the first resin is a sheet-like resin.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to molding electronic device, manufacture of a semiconductor device sealing process, Fujitsu teaches the first resin is a sheet-like resin used for sealing semiconductor bumps serving as projecting electrodes ([0179] discloses sheet shaped resin 51 used as a sealing resin for sealing bumps 12, see Fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the applicant’s invention application to combine the process of sealing electronic as taught by YAMADA with including a sealing sheet-like resin as taught by Fujitsu, for the benefit of efficiently sealing bumps on a semiconductor device, thereby improving the reliability of the semiconductor devices (see problems to be solved, on page 2 of Fujitsu). By using a sheet-like resin, one ordinary skill in the art controls the material flow via heat and mold and thereby efficiently sealing of the bumps serving as projecting electrodes, thereby creating a reliable and improved product.
As for claim 2, YAMADA further discloses that the resin is a thermosetting resin (epoxy resin, silicone resin, etc) ([0025]), thus, in combination with Fujitsu, one ordinary skilled in the art can any of the materials as suggested by Yamada and Fujitsu, and use the second resin having identical or different properties as the first resin as claimed.
As for claim 3 and 8, YAMADA further discloses comprising: a first resin supply portion, configured to supply the first resin ([0078],[0081][0098]); and a second resin supply portion, configured to supply the second resin, wherein the second resin supply portion is configured to supply the second resin into an opening of a guide portion on the first resin supplied by the first resin supply portion and vice-versa ([[0078],[0081][0098] discloses resin dropping unit/shooter used for dropping smaller batch to region where it is needed in addition to supplied resin/first resin).
As for claim 4 and 6, YAMADA further discloses wherein the resin sealing mold comprises an upper mold (43) and a lower mold (44) (see Figs. 10-14), and the upper mold has a cavity recessed portion opening toward the lower mold and vice-versa (Figs. 10-14, item 45).
As for claims 11 and 12, YAMADA further discloses wherein a supply amount of the second resin is determined based on a difference between the resin amount calculated by the resin amount calculation portion and a supply amount of the first resin ([0029], [0078], [0081], [0098] ); wherein a supply amount of the second resin is smaller than a supply amount of the first resin ([0078][0081],[0098]).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APIC YAMADA CORP (KR 20140092381 (A); hereinafter “YAMADA”) in view of Fujitsu Automation (JPH 1079362 A; hereinafter “Fujitsu”) in further view of either one of Hajduk et al. (US 2003/0141613 A1) or Tanaka (US 2008/0152750 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, YAMADA and Fujitsu teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fails to teach a loader hand, configured to transport the resin material to the resin sealing mold as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Hajduk et al. disclose dispensing material samples with a robot (loader) (see claim 17) which is capable of dispensing to the resin sealing mold as claimed. Similarly, also Tanaka discloses supply robot (52) used for dispensing molding material to supply zone (see [0052]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to further combine above with having a loader/robotic arm, as taught by Hajduk et al, or Tanaka, for the benefit of efficiently transporting and supplying material into a mold during resin molding, thereby speeding up a process and reducing cost.
Claim limitation pertaining to wherein the second resin has a higher releasability than the first resin, and the loader hand is configured to provide the first resin and the second resin in the cavity recessed portion with the second resin facing the upper mold, are intended use of the apparatus as the combination teaches use of first and second resin, thus using desired material for the second resin with higher releasability would have been within the level of one ordinary skilled in the art to provide easy removal of the product once molded/sealed.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APIC YAMADA CORP (KR 20140092381 (A); hereinafter “YAMADA”) in view of Fujitsu Automation (JPH 1079362 A; hereinafter “Fujitsu”) in further view of either one of KARAKO et al. (US 2022/0203549 A1) or NAKAYAMA et al. (US 2007/0051462 A1).
As for claim 9 and 10, YAMADA and Fujitsu teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach a loader hand, configured to transport the resin material to the resin sealing mold, wherein the loader hand has a suction pad or an electrostatic chuck…as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to transportation or dispensing, KARAKO et al. teach using transport robot that transports an object/material to an intended position (see [0046]) and includes a suction pad (112; [0046]). KARAKO et al. further discloses that the suction pad (112) is attachable and detachable from the robotic arm (see [0086]). Furthermore, also in the same field of endeavor, transportation of object, NAKAYAMA teaches a transport mechanism for transporting substrates from the first chamber to the second chamber includes a first transport robot for transporting the upper substrate and a second transport robot for transporting the lower substrate; and wherein each of the first and second transport robots has a substrate transport arm including a plurality of suction pads for preventing the substrate from moving (see claim 3; [0018]-[0021]).
It would have been obvious to further combine above with having robotic arm for transporting materials, as taught by either one of KARAKO et al. or NAKAYAMA, for the benefit controlling a process automatically, thereby speeding up a process and reducing cost. The robotic arm as taught by the above combination can be configured to perform intended task as claimed, including transporting of first and second resin to the resin sealing mold in a state in which first and second resin are fused together, as these robots can handle any object or material transportation to desired location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2009/0261494 A1 - discloses use of a robot or manipulator for dispensing into mold ([0068]).
US 2007/0132152 A1 – robot used for transporting substrates (see [0046]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights