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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 07/16/26 regarding rejected claims on pages 7-9, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues “Applicants submit that the Office Action's assertion that "the bottom surface of turntable 12 is not different from bottom surface of the tool" is incorrect: Cheng inspects the bottom surface of the workpiece (package 24) through the holder, and never inspects the bottom surface of the turntable or of any pick-and-place tool.
Thus, in contrast to the elements recited in the amended independent claims, Vaez- Iravani, Cheng, and Freifeld, taken alone or in any combination, fail to teach or suggest inspecting the bottom surface of "a pick-and-place tool configured to transfer an electrical component to a target location" and determining a surface shape (or whether the bottom surface includes a defect) "prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location."”
First: Cheng’s figures 1, 2, disclose that the transparent glass window 30 is a portion of the tunable 12. Therefore, it is obvious that the inspection optics 20, 22 inspect both the front and bottom surfaces of the turntable 12 including transparent glass window 30.
Second: Cheng discloses “A driving mechanism such as a motor 16 drives the turntable 12 to rotate along the direction indicated in order to move the packages 24 from an onloading position where they are placed onto the package holders 14 to an offloading position where they are removed from the package holders 14”, (Cheng, column 4, lines 14-18). Therefore, it is obvious that the turntable 12 is configured to transfer an electronics package 24 from an onloading position to the offloading target location.
Third: Although, Cheng does not teach a specific pick-and-place tool, a pick-and-place tool is just the name of a tool for transferring components such as transferring electronics package. As disclosed above, Cheng’s turntable 12 has a function similarly to the function of a pick-and-place tool, that is to transfer electrical components from an onloading position to the offloading target location. Moreover, the claims do not disclose a specific structure of a pick-and-place tool. Therefore, according to the Examiner point of view, Cheng’s turntable could be interpreted broadly as a pick-and-place tool. In other words, if Applicant’s pick-and-place tool is a specific tool, the structure of the tool must be added in both specification and the claims so that it could be considered.
Fourth: Cheng’s reference column 4, lines 26-29 disclosed “The pattern recognition alignment optical system 18 aligns one or more sawn packages in the X, Y and θ axes with respect to the package holders 14 to ensure correct orientation”. This limitation is not different from determining the surface of the package holder of the turntable tool prior to the tool contacting the target location. In the other words, Cheng has disclosed the new added limitation “determine a surface … of the tool prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location”.
3. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 14-17, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Vaez-Iravani teaches a surface scanning tool (figure 1; [0019]), comprising:
a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on a bottom surface of a tool (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a bottom surface of a tool, laser 14, 16; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of element 204; [0057]);
a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface (figure 1, CCD 32 detect reflected light from a bottom surface 18 of a tool; Abstract, lines 14-17; [0021], lines 7-9; [0035]; [0070], lines 7-12; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface of element 204, [0057], lines 9-16); and
a signal analysis module configured to receive the set of reflected light and determine a surface shape of the bottom surface (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058]; [0068], lines 4-8. Detecting anomalies of sample surfaces having patterns is not different from determining a surface shape).
However, Vaez-Iravani does not teach a pick-and-place tool configured to transfer an electrical component to a target location, determining a surface shape prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location. Cheng teaches a pick-and-place tool configured to transfer an electrical component to a target location and determining a surface shape prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location, (figure 1, the bottom surface inspection 22 inspects the bottom surface of turntable 12, the bottom surface of turntable 12 is not different from bottom surface of a pick-and-place tool; Abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25; Column 4, lines 8-10. The turntable 12 is configured to transfer an electronics package 24 from an onloading position to the offloading target location. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani by having surface of the tool in order to implement inspection system to inspect the second surface of the tool, (Cheng, abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim 3, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teaches a surface scanning tool according to claim 1 as stated above except for wherein the beam of light has a wavelength between about 300 nm to about 950 nm. The selection of wavelength range for a detection light beam between about 300nm to about 950nm or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate wavelength range for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 5, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teaches a surface scanning tool according to claim 1 as stated above except for the signal analysis module determines the surface shape is normal in response to determining that the set of light reflected off the pick-and-place tool includes major reflected light signals, and the signal analysis module determines the surface shape is abnormal in response to determining that the set of light reflected off the pick-and-place tool includes scattered reflected light signals. Vaez-Iravani further teaches the signal analysis module determines the surface shape is normal/abnormal in response to determining that the set of light reflected off the tool includes major reflected light signals (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312; [0058], [0068], lines 4-8. Detecting anomalies of sample surfaces having patterns is not different from determining a surface shape. The sample surface without anomalies is normal, and sample surface with anomalies is abnormal. Although Vaez-Iravani does not teach pick-and-place tool, Cheng this limitation as disclosed in claim 1, (the turntable 12 is not different from a pick-and-place tool. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teaches a surface scanning tool according to claim 1 as stated above except for the signal analysis module is further configured to trigger an action. Vaez-Iravani further teaches the signal analysis module is further configured to trigger an action (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]. To prevent the scattering from the patterns may overwhelm signals from anomalies or to inspect the entire surface or to determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from to trigger an action).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teaches a surface scanning tool according to claim 1 as stated above except for the laser is further configured to irradiate the bottom surface of the pick-and-place tool. Vaez-Iravani teaches the laser is further configured to irradiate the bottom surface of the element (figure 1, surface 18, laser 14, 16. It is inherent that the backside inspection system 206 in Vaez-Iravani’s figure 10 must contains a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of the element 204 and to determine a surface shape of the bottom surface of the element 204, [0057]). Although Vaez-Iravani does not teach pick-and-place tool, Cheng this limitation as disclosed in claim 1, (the turntable 12 is not different from a pick-and-place tool. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Vaez-Iravani teaches a method for scanning a bottom surface ([0012]), comprising:
providing the bottom surface (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a surface; Figure 10, Present system for backside inspection 206 to inspect the bottom surface of element 204);
scanning the bottom surface with a surface scanning (Figure 10, Present system for backside inspection 206 to scan the bottom surface of element 204, [0057]), wherein the surface scanning includes a scanning and a signal analysis module (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]);
determining, by the signal analysis module, a surface shape of the bottom surface (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]. Detecting anomalies of sample surfaces having patterns is not different from determining a surface shape); and
performing an action based on the determined surface shape (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]. To prevent the scattering from the patterns may overwhelm signals from anomalies or to inspect the entire surface or to determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from performing an action).
However, Vaez-Iravani does not teach a pick-and-place tool configured to transfer an electrical component to a target location, determining a surface shape prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location. Cheng teaches a pick-and-place tool configured to transfer an electrical component to a target location and determining a surface shape prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location, (figure 1, the bottom surface inspection 22 inspects the bottom surface of turntable 12, the bottom surface of turntable 12 is not different from bottom surface of a pick-and-place tool; Abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25; Column 4, lines 8-10. The turntable 12 is configured to transfer an electronics package 24 from an onloading position to the offloading target location. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani by having surface of the tool in order to implement inspection system to inspect the second surface of the tool, (Cheng, abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teaches a method for scanning according to claim 14 as stated above except for the scanning tool includes a laser and a detector and scanning the bottom surface further comprises: illuminating the bottom surface of the pick-and-place tool with a narrow beam of light from the laser; receiving at the detector a set of reflected light from the bottom surface; and transmitting the set of reflected light to the signal analysis module. Vaez-Iravani further teaches the scanning tool includes a laser and a detector and scanning the bottom surface further comprises: illuminating the bottom surface with a narrow beam of light from the laser (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a surface, narrow laser 16, 20; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contains a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of element 204, [0057]); receiving at the detector a set of reflected light from the bottom surface (figure 1, CCD 32 detect reflected light from surface 18; Abstract, lines 14-17; [0021], lines 7-9; [0035]; [0070], lines 7-12; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface of element 204, [0057]); and transmitting the set of reflected light to the signal analysis module (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]). Although Vaez-Iravani does not teach pick-and-place tool, Cheng this limitation as disclosed in claim 1, (the turntable 12 is not different from a pick-and-place tool. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Vaez-Iravani teaches the surface shape is determined to be normal in response to determining that the set of reflected light includes major reflected light and wherein the surface shape is determined to be abnormal in response to determining that the set of reflected light includes scattered light ([0058, 0068]. To determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from the surface shape being determined to be normal or abnormal).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Vaez-Iravani teaches a camera and scanning the bottom surface further comprises: taking an image of the bottom surface; and sending the image to the signal analysis module (figures 1, 12, CCD 32 is not different from a camera taking an image of the bottom surface and sending the image to computer 312).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Vaez-Iravani teaches detecting a feature to be placed on a wafer surface (figure 10, wafer 204).
6. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Bills et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0186362). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Bills”.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a display device configured to display a visual representation of the bottom surface of the tool, wherein the visual representation is generated by the signal analysis module. Bills teaches a display device configured to display a visual representation of the surface of the tool, wherein the visual representation is generated by the signal analysis module, ([0503], lines 1-11; [0605]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani and Cheng by having a display device in order to show the surface of the inspected element.
7. Claim(s) 7, 18, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0246974). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Choi”.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, 19, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 6, or claim 14 as stated above except for in response to determining that the surface shape is normal the action includes: continuing use of the tool; in response to determining that the surface shape is abnormal the action includes at least one of: transmitting a warning signal; stopping use of the tool; initiating a cleaning cycle of the tool; or rescanning the bottom surface. Choi teaches to trigger an action in response to determining that the surface shape is normal the action includes: continuing use of the tool; in response to determining that the surface shape is abnormal the action includes at least one of: transmitting a warning signal; stopping use of the tool; initiating a cleaning cycle of the tool; or rescanning the bottom surface, ([0046, 0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani and Cheng by triggering an action, transmitting a warning signal in order to improve detection ([0046, 0054]).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Vaez-Iravani and Cheng teach all the limitations of claims 14, 17 as stated above except for to determining that a similarity value between the image and a baseline image meets a threshold value and wherein the surface shape is determined to be abnormal in response to determining that the similarity value between the image and the baseline image is below the threshold value. Choi teaches to determining that a similarity value between the image and a baseline image meets a threshold value and wherein the surface shape is determined to be abnormal in response to determining that the similarity value between the image and the baseline image is below the threshold value, ([0040, 0133, 0140]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani and Cheng by having a threshold value in order to analyze to find a defect (Choi, [0040, 0103, 0133, 0140]).
8. Claim(s) 21-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Freifeld (U.S. Pat. No. 6,724,489). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Freifeld”.
Regarding Claim(s) 21, Vaez-Iravani teaches a method for detecting a defect on a bottom surface ([0012]), comprising:
illuminating the bottom surface with a laser (figure 1, surface 18 is not different from a surface, laser 14, 16; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a laser configured to illuminate a beam of light on bottom surface of element 204, [0057]);
receiving, at a detector, reflected light signals and scattered light signals from the bottom surface (figure 1, CCD 32 detect reflected scattered light from surface 18; Abstract, lines 14-17; [0021], lines 7-9; [0035]; [0070], lines 7-12; Figure 10, backside inspection 206 must contain a detector configured to receive a set of reflected light from the bottom surface of element 204, [0057]);
analyzing, by a signal analysis module, the reflected light signals and the scattered light signals to determine whether the bottom surface includes the defect (figures 12, 13, 14, computer 312 is not different from a signal analysis module; [0058, 0068]); and
triggering a mitigation action in response to determining that the bottom surface includes the defect, (figures 12, 13, 14; [0058, 0068]. To prevent the scattering from the patterns may overwhelm signals from anomalies or to inspect the entire surface or to determine an anomaly on the surface is not different from triggering a mitigation action).
However, Vaez-Iravani does not teach a pick-and-place tool configured to transfer an electrical component to a target location, determining a surface shape prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location. Cheng teaches a pick-and-place tool configured to transfer an electrical component to a target location and determining a surface shape prior to the pick-and-place tool contacting the target location, (figure 1, the bottom surface inspection 22 inspects the bottom surface of turntable 12, the bottom surface of turntable 12 is not different from bottom surface of a pick-and-place tool; Abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25; Column 4, lines 8-10. The turntable 12 is configured to transfer an electronics package 24 from an onloading position to the offloading target location. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani by having surface of the tool in order to implement inspection system to inspect the second surface of the tool, (Cheng, abstract, lines 11-15; Column 1, lines 22-25).
Regarding Claim 22, selection of a photodetector sensitive to wavelengths in a range of about 300 nm to about 950 nm or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate photodetector sensitive for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
9. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Freifeld (U.S. Pat. No. 6,724,489), further in view of Prakapenka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0102577). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Freifeld”, “Prakapenka”.
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld teach all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above except for stopping the pick- and-place tool from picking and placing electrical component. Prakapenka teaches stopping the pick- and-place tool from picking and placing electrical component ([0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld by stopping the pick- and-place tool in order to elaborately construct inspection facilities the lateral surfaces of the component, (Prakapenka, [0004]).
10. Claim(s) 24, 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaez-Iravani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0156042), in view of Cheng et al. (Pat. No. 7,190,446), further in view of Freifeld (U.S. Pat. No. 6,724,489), further in view of Bills et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0186362). Hereafter “Vaez-Iravani”, “Cheng”, “Freifeld”, “Bills”.
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld teach all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above except for generating a visual representation of the bottom surface on a display device, wherein the visual representation includes an indicator to identify a location of the defect. Bill teaches generating a visual representation of the bottom surface on a display device, wherein the visual representation includes an indicator to identify a location of the defect ([0482, 0484, 0492]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld by having display device in order to indicate the location of the defect, (Bill, [0482, 0484, 0492]).
Regarding Claim(s) 25, Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld teach all the limitations of claim 21 as stated above except for the defect comprises a protrusion or a contamination on the bottom surface. Bill teaches the defect comprises a protrusion or a contamination on the bottom surface ([0550, 0586]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Vaez-Iravani, Cheng and Freifeld by having the defect comprising a protrusion or a contamination on the bottom surface in order to identify the extent of the contribution of surface roughness, (Bill, [0550, 0586]).
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 10, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights