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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US-20110116084A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lee teaches a method for inspecting a semiconductor package, the method comprising: (abstract; 101, 102, 103,104, 105, 106, 107 fig. 2, ‘laser beam radiation unit’, ‘probe beam radiation unit’, ‘laser beam’, ‘probe beam’, ‘substrate’, ‘inspection target circuit pattern’, ‘connection circuit pattern’; para(s) [0035-0046])
generating and directing an excitation laser beam toward an excitation area on a first side of the semiconductor package so as to generate ultrasonic vibration in the semiconductor package, (101, 103 fig. 2,’laser beam radiation unit’, ‘laser beam’; para(s) [0035-0046])
generating and directing a measurement laser beam toward a measurement area on a second side of the semiconductor package, the first side and the second side being opposite to each other, and (102, 104 fig. 2,’ probe beam radiation unit’, ‘probe beam’; para(s) [0035-0046])
detecting the measurement laser beam reflected from the measurement area with a vibration detector to measure the ultrasonic vibration generated by the excitation laser beam, thereby inspecting a quality of the semiconductor package. (para(s) [0042-0043], ‘the optical energy of the laser beam 103 produces the standing waves of the surface acoustic waves on the excited inspection target circuit pattern 106. Such standing waves cause a kind of grating effect, thus resulting in a diffraction phenomenon and varying a refractive index. In this case, the high-power laser beam 103 can generate sufficient surface acoustic waves on the inspection target circuit pattern 106. Precise measurements can be performed using the probe beam 104 only when the intensity of the surface acoustic waves is sufficiently high.’)
In regards to claim 2, Lee teaches a method according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the first side of the semiconductor package includes a surface of a substrate comprised in the semiconductor package. (105 fig. 2,’substrate’)
In regards to claim 3, Lee teaches a method according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) wherein the second side of the semiconductor package includes a surface of a die attached to the substrate, and/or a surface of an interconnect bonded to the die attached to the substrate. (107 fig. 2,’ connection circuit pattern’)
In regards to claim 4, Lee teaches a method according to claim 3, (see claim rejection 3) wherein the step of inspecting the semiconductor package comprises: inspecting for quality inconsistencies in the semiconductor package, wherein the quality inconsistencies include one or more of the following defects: a void and/or a delamination defect formed in an adhesive layer between the die and the substrate, a void defect formed in an adhesive layer between the die and the interconnect bonded to the die, a crack formed in the die comprised in the semiconductor package, and uneven distribution of an adhesive layer between the die and the substrate. (abstract; claim 1, ‘A method of inspecting defects in a circuit pattern of a substrate, comprising:’)
In regards to claim 5, Lee teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the first and second sides of the semiconductor package include two opposite surfaces of a molded enclosure of the semiconductor package. : (abstract; 101, 102, 103,104, 105, 106, 107 fig. 2, ‘laser beam radiation unit’, ‘probe beam radiation unit’, ‘laser beam’, ‘probe beam’, ‘substrate’, ‘inspection target circuit pattern’, ‘connection circuit pattern’;) para(s) [0035-0046]
In regards to claim 6, Lee teaches a method according to claim 5, (see claim rejection 5) wherein the step of inspecting the semiconductor package comprises: inspecting for a crack formed in the molded enclosure. (abstract; claim 1, ‘A method of inspecting defects in a circuit pattern of a substrate, comprising:’; 107 fig. 2,’ connection circuit pattern’)
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20110116084A1), in view of, Nelson (US-5982482).
Lee teaches:
In regards to claim 7, Lee teaches a method according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee to provide a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
Lee teaches the basic concept of the technology that the invention is utilizing; however, does not go into detail about sequentially directing the excitation laser beam toward a plurality of excitation areas on the first side of the semiconductor package.
Lee does not teach:
further comprising sequentially directing the excitation laser beam toward a plurality of excitation areas on the first side of the semiconductor package.
Nelson teaches:
further comprising sequentially directing the excitation laser beam toward a plurality of excitation areas on the first side of the semiconductor package. (fig. 1, ‘discloses a movable platform where a plurality of excitation area can be inspected. It also shows more than 1 semiconductor wafer can be examined.’; (abstract; 16, 20, 24, 29 fig. 1, ‘optical system’, ‘detection system’ ‘signal analyzer’, ‘computer’; 240 fig. 2,’method’; 38 col. 2 to 52 col. 5)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Nelson to provide an optical system for a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20110116084A1), in view of, Murray (CN-108565205).
Lee teaches:
In regards to claim 8, Lee teaches a method according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee to provide a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
Lee does not teach:
further comprising sequentially directing the measurement laser beam toward a plurality of measurement areas on the second side of the semiconductor package.
Murray teaches:
further comprising sequentially directing the measurement laser beam toward a plurality of measurement areas on the second side of the semiconductor package. (para(s) [0031-0032], ‘lasers can have a variety of relative arrangements’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Murray to provide a method for a device of Lee for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
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(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20110116084A1), Nelson (US-5982482), in view of, Murray (CN-108565205).
Lee & Nelson teach:
In regards to claim 9, Lee & Nelson teach a method according to claim 7, (see claim rejection 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee to provide a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
Lee & Nelson don’t teach:
further comprising sequentially directing the measurement laser beam toward a plurality of measurement areas on the second side of the semiconductor package corresponding to changes in positions of the excitation laser beam relative to the plurality of excitation areas.
Murray teaches:
further comprising sequentially directing the measurement laser beam toward a plurality of measurement areas on the second side of the semiconductor package corresponding to changes in positions of the excitation laser beam relative to the plurality of excitation areas.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Murray to provide a method for device and method of Lee & Nelson for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components. (para(s) [0031-0032], ‘lasers can have a variety of relative arrangements’)
In regards to claim 10, Lee Nelson & Murray teach a method according to claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein each measurement area on the second side of the semiconductor package has a predetermined spatial relationship with a corresponding excitation area on the first side of the semiconductor package. (Murray: para(s) [0031-0032], ‘lasers can have a variety of relative arrangements’)
In regards to claim 11, Lee Nelson & Murray teach a method according to claim 10, wherein each measurement area on the second side and a corresponding excitation area on the first side are located directly opposite to and coextensive with each other. . (Murray: para(s) [0031-0032], ‘lasers can have a variety of relative arrangements’)
In regards to claim 12, Lee Nelson & Murray teach method according to claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein the step of detecting the measurement laser beam comprises: detecting frequency changes of the measurement laser beam at the plurality of measurement areas so as to inspect quality inconsistencies in the semiconductor package that are deducible from the detected frequency changes. (Nelson: 14-42 col. 4)
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(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20110116084A1), in view of, Nelson (US-5982482).
Lee teaches:
In regards to claim 13, Lee teaches an apparatus according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 14)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee to provide a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
Lee teaches the basic concept of the technology that the invention is utilizing; however, does not go into detail about a vibration detector comprises a vibrometer. even though one of ordinary sill would find it obvious.
Lee does not teach:
wherein the vibration detector comprises a vibrometer.
Nelson teaches:
wherein the vibration detector comprises a vibrometer. (20, 24, 26 fig. 1, ‘optical detection system’, ‘signal analysis system’, ‘photodetector’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Nelson to provide an optical system for a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US-20110116084A1).
In regards to claim 14, Lee teaches an apparatus for inspecting a semiconductor package, the apparatus comprising: : (abstract; 101, 102, 103,104, 105, 106, 107 fig. 2, ‘laser beam radiation unit’, ‘probe beam radiation unit’, ‘laser beam’, ‘probe beam’, ‘substrate’, ‘inspection target circuit pattern’, ‘connection circuit pattern’; para(s) [0035-0046])
an excitation laser assembly operative to generate and direct an excitation laser beam toward an excitation area on a first side of the semiconductor package so as to generate ultrasonic vibration in the semiconductor package, and (101, 103 fig. 2,’laser beam radiation unit’, ‘laser beam’; para(s) [0035-0046])
a measurement laser assembly operative to generate and direct a measurement laser beam toward a measurement area on a second side of the semiconductor package opposite to the first side, and (102, 104 fig. 2,’ probe beam radiation unit’, ‘probe beam’; para(s) [0035-0046])
a vibration detector operative to detect the measurement laser beam reflected from the second side of the semiconductor package to measure the vibration generated by the excitation laser beam at the measurement area, thereby inspecting a quality of the semiconductor package. (abstract; para(s) [0042-0043], ‘the optical energy of the laser beam 103 produces the standing waves of the surface acoustic waves on the excited inspection target circuit pattern 106. Such standing waves cause a kind of grating effect, thus resulting in a diffraction phenomenon and varying a refractive index. In this case, the high-power laser beam 103 can generate sufficient surface acoustic waves on the inspection target circuit pattern 106. Precise measurements can be performed using the probe beam 104 only when the intensity of the surface acoustic waves is sufficiently high.’)
In regards to claim 15, Lee teaches an apparatus according to claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) wherein the excitation laser assembly and the measurement laser assembly are positioned on opposite sides of the semiconductor package. (101, 102 fig. 2, ‘laser beam radiation unit’, ‘probe beam radiation unit’)
In regards to claim 20, Lee teaches an apparatus according to claim 14, (see claim rejection 14) further comprising a control system configured to record detection results from the vibration detector and to analyze the detection results to identify quality inconsistencies in the semiconductor package. (para(s) [0042-0043], ‘the optical energy of the laser beam 103 produces the standing waves of the surface acoustic waves on the excited inspection target circuit pattern 106. Such standing waves cause a kind of grating effect, thus resulting in a diffraction phenomenon and varying a refractive index. In this case, the high-power laser beam 103 can generate sufficient surface acoustic waves on the inspection target circuit pattern 106. Precise measurements can be performed using the probe beam 104 only when the intensity of the surface acoustic waves is sufficiently high.’)
In regards to claim 21, Lee teaches an apparatus according to claim 20, (see claim rejection 20) wherein the control system includes a control module configured to send control signals to the excitation laser assembly and/or the measurement laser assembly to adjust the direction of the excitation laser beam and/or the direction of the measurement laser beam. (fig(s) 2-4, ‘show that the orientation of the laser 101 can be changed to different positions.’)
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(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20110116084A1), in view of, Nelson (US-5982482).
Lee teaches:
In regards to claim 16, Lee teaches an apparatus according to claim 14, (see claim rejection 14)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee to provide a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
Lee teaches the basic concept of the technology that the invention is utilizing; however, does not go into detail about an optical system even though one of ordinary sill would find it obvious.
Lee does not teach:
wherein the vibration detector and the measurement laser assembly utilize a common optical system.
Nelson teaches:
wherein the vibration detector and the measurement laser assembly utilize a common optical system. (abstract; 16, 20, 24, 29 fig. 1, ‘optical system’, ‘detection system’ ‘signal analyzer’, ‘computer’; fig. 2,’method’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Nelson to provide an optical system for a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
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(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20110116084A1), in view of, Nelson (US-5982482).
Lee teaches:
In regards to claim 19, Lee teaches an apparatus according to claim 14, (see claim rejection 14)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee to provide a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
Lee teaches the basic concept of the technology that the invention is utilizing; however, does not go into detail about a vibration detector comprises a vibrometer. even though one of ordinary sill would find it obvious.
Lee does not teach:
wherein the vibration detector comprises a vibrometer.
Nelson teaches:
wherein the vibration detector comprises a vibrometer. (20, 24, 26 fig. 1, ‘optical detection system’, ‘signal analysis system’, ‘photodetector’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Nelson to provide an optical system for a device and method for ease of inspection of substrates comprising electrical components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17-18 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.
The Examiner completed a PE2E search and a Similarity search 6/30/2026. What was not found in any of the references reviewed by the Examiner is all of the components required in claim 17. Claim 18 depends from claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Guo (TW-202614250-A), Su (KR-20230065514-A), and Sun (CN-115841969-A) references further describe a a method for inspecting defects in a circuit as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights