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 § 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, 3, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature titled, “Measurement of Large Forces and Deflections in Microstructures” (herein Hals) in view of US 20150084213 (herein Heng) and JP H10213495 A (herein Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Hals teaches A
a stage supporting a
a measuring unit disposed on an upper surface of the stage and configured to generate warpage stiffness information of the
a moving unit disposed on the stage and moving the measuring unit to a plurality of predetermined positions on the reconstituted substrate (x-y-table, Sec. III.D),
wherein the measuring unit includes a measuring tip and a sensing unit having a load cell configured to measure a force applied through the measuring tip to the reconstituted substrate in a vertical direction and a
wherein at each of the plurality of predetermined positions, the measuring tip contacts the measurements, and Sec. III.D. teaches making a series of measurements located at different sites on the wafer), and
wherein the warpage stiffness information includes the force and the degree of deformation measured at each of the plurality of predetermined positions (Fig. 7 teaches force-deflection measurements at different placements of stylus).
Further regarding claim 1, Hals does not teach the wafer explicitly being “reconstituted” or having “warpage.” However, Heng teaches reconstituted wafers having warping effect is known in the art (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize the stiffness measuring of Hals to test the reconstituted warped wafers of Heng. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of verification of elastic stiffness and design verification and process control (Sec. I, Hals).
Additionally regarding claim 1, Hals does not teach the gauge being a push-pull gauge. However, push-pull gauges are well known in the art and taught by Suzuki to determine amount of force applied to an object (push-pull gauge 13, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to simply substitute the deflection measurement used by Hals with the push-pull gauge taught by Suzuki because both perform the same function of determining an amount of force applied to a substrate. The above findings satisfy the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Hals teaches wherein a cross-section shape of the measuring tip in a horizontal plane parallel to the upper surface of the stage is a cross, straight line, Y-shape, or circle shape (p. 2 states probe tip has a spherical radius, and a sphere inherently has a circle cross-section).
Regarding claim 9, Hals does not teach “wherein the reconstituted substrate includes a reconstituted wafer or a reconstituted panel.” However, Heng teaches reconstituted wafers (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize the stiffness measuring of Hals to test the reconstituted wafers of Heng. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of verification of elastic stiffness and design verification and process control (Sec. I, Hals).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki teaches a system having the equivalent warpage stiffness measuring apparatus found in claim 1, and is rejected equivalently. In addition, Hals teaches “an input unit for inputting the plurality of predetermined positions and a general information about the reconstituted substrate; an analysis unit configured to derive a plurality of warpage stiffness values of the plurality of predetermined positions from the general information of the reconstituted substrate and the warpage stiffness information; and a storage unit that stores the plurality of warpage stiffness values” (LabView program controlled computer found in Sec. II, p. 1 serves as an equivalent input unit, analysis unit and storage unit).
Regarding claim 11, Hals teaches a display unit that displays the plurality of warpage stiffness values at the plurality of predetermined positions (computer, Sec. II).
Regarding claim 12, Hals teaches a control unit that controls the measuring unit, the moving unit, the input unit, the analysis unit, the storage unit, and the display unit (Sec. II states actuator is computer controlled, specifically by LabView program).
Regarding claim 13, Hals teaches wherein the general information of the reconstituted substrate includes a warpage value of the reconstituted substrate (Fig. 9 teaches information regarding deflection which may equate to wafer warpage).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hals, Heng, and Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2005026265A (herein Maruta).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “wherein the stage includes a cleaning unit for cleaning the measuring tip.” However, Maruta teaches a cleaning unit 8 being interlocked with a wafer stage 3 for cleaning probe tips is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the cleaning unit 8 of Maruta into the platform of Hals. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of cleaning a probe to prevent scraps from affecting performance ([0005]).
Claim(s) 4-8, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hals, Heng, and Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7113273 (herein Pahk).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “wherein the stage includes an origin displaying unit, which is located at an origin of Cartesian coordinate in which a moving path of the measuring unit is defined.” However, Pahk teaches a computer 100 having a display monitor 102 and a controller 110 that controls operation (Col. 7, Lines 4-19) within the Cartesian coordinate system (Col. 8, Lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “wherein the moving unit includes: a pair of first moving units that move the measuring unit in a first horizontal direction parallel to the upper surface of the stage; a pair of second moving units that move the measuring unit in the vertical direction; and a third moving unit moves the measuring unit in a second horizontal direction parallel to the upper surface of the stage and intersecting the first horizontal direction.” However, Pahk teaches motion actuators 14, 16 and 18 for each of the X, Y, and Z axis, that each may be constructed by rack and pinion, or belt and pulley (Col. 4, Lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “a pair of first guide rails disposed on the stage, wherein each of the pair of first guide rails extends in the first horizontal direction, wherein the pair of first guide rails are spaced apart from each other in the second horizontal direction, and wherein the pair of first moving units move along the pair of first guide rails, respectively.” However, Pahk teaches the motion actuator 14 comprises first guide rail 14a installed in an X-axis direction (Col. 4, Line 4). Pahk does not explicitly teach a pair of rails 14a, but such is a mere duplication of parts and, according to MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Note that according to MPEP § 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “a pair of second guide rails extending in the vertical direction, wherein the pair of second guide rails are spaced apart from each other in the second horizontal direction, wherein the pair of second guide rails are disposed on the pair of the first moving units, respectively, and wherein the pair of second moving units move along the pair of second guide rails, respectively.” However, Pahk teaches motion actuator 18 comprises a third guide rail 18a installed vertically downward from the first slide 14e of the X-axis linear motion actuator 14 (Col. 4, Lines 18-21). Pahk does not explicitly teach a pair of rails 18a, but such is a mere duplication of parts and, according to MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Note that according to MPEP § 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “a third guide rail extending in the second horizontal direction between the pair of second moving units, wherein the third moving unit moves along the third guide rail.” However, Pahk teaches Y-axis linear motion actuator 16 comprises a second guide rail 16a installed in a Y-axis direction of the table 12 (Col. 4, Lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 16, the claimed method may be rejected by the structure and functionality of the invention of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki, and Pahk used to reject claim 4. Consequently, claim 16 may be rejected in the same manner as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, Hals teaches deriving a warpage stiffness value of the first predetermined position after measuring warpage stiffness information of the first predetermined position (for wafer level force versus deflection measurements.. we have sufficient precision to measure stiffness at chosen points, Sec. IV).
Regarding claim 20, Hals teaches storing, transmitting, and displaying the warpage stiffness value after deriving the stiffness value (LabView program controlled computer found in Sec. II, p. 1 teaches a storing, transmitting, and displaying functionality).
For claims 4-8, 16, and 19-20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute X, Y, and Z actuating means of Hals with the X, Y, and Z actuating means of Pahk because the substitution would provide predictable results for precisely moving an inspection device. The above findings satisfy the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hals, Heng, and Suzuki as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US20150192616 (herein Chen).
Regarding claim 14, Hals teaches “wherein the plurality of predetermined positions include… a fixed measuring position” (initial position, Sec. III.C., p. 4). The combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “a position determined based on the warpage value of the reconstituted substrate.” However, Chen teaches it is known in the wafer probing art to determine an alignment factor for offset correction based on wafer warpage ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the alignment factor of Chen into the positioning points of Hals. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of accounting for profile irregularities in testing ([0025]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hals, Heng, and Suzuki as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 6096567 (herein Kaplan).
Regarding claim 15, combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “wherein the general information of the reconstituted substrate includes a thickness of the reconstituted substrate.” However, Kaplan teaches it is known in the wafer probing art to input a wafer thickness profile (Col. 2, Lines 22-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the wafer thickness profiling of Kaplan into the apparatus of Hals. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of accurately compensate for varying wafer thickness for probe positioning (Col. 2, Lines 22-25).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hals, Heng, Suzuki, and Pahk as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Maruta.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hals, Heng, and Suzuki does not teach, “wherein the stage includes a cleaning unit for cleaning the measuring tip.” However, Maruta teaches a cleaning unit 8 being interlocked with a wafer stage 3 for cleaning probe tips is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the cleaning unit 8 of Maruta into the platform of Hals. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of cleaning a probe to prevent scraps from affecting performance ([0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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 17, the prior art does not teach, “inputting general information and the plurality of predetermined positions of the reconstituted substrate before moving the measuring unit to the origin, wherein the general information includes a warpage value of the reconstituted substrate, a thickness of the reconstituted substrate, and a stiffness value of the reconstituted substrate.” Chen may teach positioning based on warpage, while Kaplan teaches the same bac=sed on thickness, but the uncovered prior art does not teach inputting general information and the plurality of predetermined positions of the reconstituted substrate before moving the measuring unit to the origin, wherein the general information includes a warpage value of the reconstituted substrate, a thickness of the reconstituted substrate, and a stiffness value of the reconstituted substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights