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 8, and therefore claims 9–14 and 20 which depend therefrom, are objected to because of the following informality: line 2 of claim 8 recites “detecting, by at least one processing device in an image” but should include an extra comma as follows: “detecting, by at least one processing device, in an image.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “one or more dies of the plurality of die” but should instead recite “one or more dies of the plurality of dies.” Appropriate correction is required.
Further, Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Both claims 7 and 20 depend from claim When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more, with claim 1 being exemplary:
detect, in an image of a plurality of dies on a substrate, a plurality of alignment marks, wherein each die of the plurality of dies comprises at least one alignment mark of the plurality of alignment marks; select an alignment mark from the plurality of alignment marks; determine an identity of the alignment mark; and determine a location of the alignment mark (abstract idea as a mental process as a human mind is capable of discerning from an image by looking at it, alignment marks on dies, selecting one and determining an identity and location of the alignment mark).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 further recite additional elements: claim 1 is directed towards a system comprising a memory, and at least one processing device, claim 8 recites a method with steps performed by “at least one processing device,” and claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable media. While a non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, and the processor and memory of claim 1, and “at least one processing device” recited in claim 8 are additional elements, they are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 as they amount to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claims 1, 8 and 15 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, the limitations are merely directed towards details about the dies that are imaged, but do not further limit the abstract ideas recited in the independent claims as provided above. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, with claim 3 as exemplary, the limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, specifically mental processes as the human mind is practically capable of looking at an image of dies, and from the image, detect the plurality of alignment marks, each additional image of the one or more additional images comprising a respective single alignment mark; process the one or more additional images to determine a position and an orientation of the substrate based on each respective single alignment mark; and generate a model of the substrate based on the position and the orientation of the substrate. Further, while the human mind can also “obtain one or more additional images of the substrate” by looking at a substrate, to the extend the claims would necessarily involve resolution of the substrate achievable only by a camera, the “obtain one or more additional images of the substrate” would still not be a practical application or significantly more as it would be merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 3, 10 and 17 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 6–7, 13–14 and 20, with claims 6 and 7 as exemplary, the limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, specifically mental processes as the human mind is practically capable of looking at an image of dies, and from the image, determine the identity of the alignment mark, and from a plurality of rules, a rule satisfied by the alignment mark; and each respective alignment mark of the plurality of alignment marks satisfies a respective single rule of the plurality of rules corresponding to a respective identity of the respective alignment mark. Further, the human mind is practically capable of having a set of rules it is evaluating an image with, wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is defined by at least one of: a presence of one or more other alignment marks at one or more first locations relative to the alignment mark, or an absence of one or more other alignment marks at one or more second locations relative to the alignment mark. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 6–7, 13–14 and 20 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Finally, it is noted that as per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a practical application and thus subject matter eligibility can be found when the following two requirements are met per a two-step analysis: In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Accordingly, because claims 4, 11 and 18, and by extension claims 5, 12 and 19 depending therefrom do reflect the disclosed improvement to the technological field, they are found to recite a practical application and are subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1–2, 6–9, 13–16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sabbir et al., “TrueAdaptTM- AI Based Maskless Patterning to Compensate for Die-Shift in Fan-Out Wafer Level Packaging," 2023 IEEE 73rd Electronic Components and Technology Conference (ECTC), Orlando, FL, USA, June 2, 2023, pp. 2240-2246, doi: 10.1109/ECTC51909.2023.00388 (herein “Sabbir”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, where substantive differences between the claims are noted in curly brackets, and with claim 1 as exemplary, Sabbir teaches {a system comprising: a memory; and at least one processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to: - claim 1 / a method comprising: - claim 8 / a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to perform operations comprising: - claim 15}(Sabbir page 2246, right column, disclosed algorithm (instructions) is processed with computer vision on a laptop i7-10850H CPU (processing device) which is understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (herein “PHOSITA” to have cache memory for executing the algorithm)
detect, {by at least one processing device – claim 8 (Sabbir page 2246, right column, disclosed algorithm (instructions) is processed with computer vision on a laptop i7-10850H CPU (processing device))} in an image of a plurality of dies on a substrate (Sabbir page 2243, section V, wafer assembly (substrate) is imaged with an 8MP camera resulting in a high resolution image that is analyzed using computer vision, and dies thereon are identified), a plurality of alignment marks, wherein each die of the plurality of dies comprises at least one alignment mark of the plurality of alignment marks (Sabbir page 2243, section V, right column, alignment markers on the dies are used in calculating die offsets, therefore the dies comprising at least one alignment mark that are detected);
select an alignment mark from the plurality of alignment marks (Sabbir page 2243, right column last paragraph–2244 right column, die alignment markers at the four corners of the dies are identified using template matching and used to calculate (thus selected) the die center position and rotation);
determine an identity of the alignment mark (Sabbir page 2243, right column, last paragraph, dies, and therefore the alignment markers on the dies, are identified by thresholding the whole image and selecting objects with specified area tolerance); and
determine a location of the alignment mark (Sabbir page 2243, right column last paragraph–2244 right column, template matching is used against a contour region of the image to determine the die alignment markers at the four corners (location) of the dies).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Sabbir teaches wherein the plurality of dies is comprised within a set of die packages, and wherein each die package of the set of die packages comprises one or more dies of the plurality of dies (Sabbir page 2244, section B, fig. 8A, dies are placed using a cell-based design where there is a standard cell for each die consisting of all relevant components for the package, thus the dies being within a die package, the dies in the die package being part of the plurality of the dies in the layout).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Sabbir teaches wherein: to determine the identity of the alignment mark, the at least one processing device is to determine, from a plurality of rules, a rule satisfied by the alignment mark (Sabbir page 2243, right column, before and as a pre-step to identifying the alignment marks for each die, the dies are identified by thresholding the whole image and selected objects with specified (rules) area tolerance, and then the die alignment markers at the four corners of the dies are identified using template (also a plurality of rules) matching, where the matching is the satisfying of a rule); and each respective alignment mark of the plurality of alignment marks satisfies a respective single rule of the plurality of rules corresponding to a respective identity of the respective alignment mark (Sabbir page 2243, right column, die alignment markers at the four corners of the dies are identified (thus an alignment mark having a “corner” location identity per die) using template matching, therefore matching template (satisfying rules) is respective to die and corner type of the four corner alignment mark).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Sabbir teaches wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is defined by at least one of: a presence of one or more other alignment marks at one or more first locations relative to the alignment mark, or an absence of one or more other alignment marks at one or more second locations relative to the alignment mark (given that the claims recite the limitations in the alternative “or” and “at least one of”, then Sabbir at least teaches on page 2244 that the template (rules) matching is to die alignment marks on the four corners, thus including the presence of the other corner die alignment marks relative to any one corner die alignment mark).
Regarding claim 20, Sabbir teaches wherein determining the identity of the alignment mark further comprises: determining, from a plurality of rules, a rule satisfied by the alignment mark (Sabbir page 2243, right column, before and as a pre-step to identifying the alignment marks for each die, the dies are identified by thresholding the whole image and selected objects with specified (rules) area tolerance, and then the die alignment markers at the four corners of the dies are identified using template (also a plurality of rules) matching, where the matching is the satisfying of a rule), wherein each respective alignment mark of the plurality of alignment marks satisfies a respective single rule of the plurality of rules corresponding to a respective identity of the respective alignment mark (Sabbir page 2243, right column, die alignment markers at the four corners of the dies are identified (thus an alignment mark having a “corner” location identity per die) using template matching, therefore matching template (satisfying rules) is respective to die and corner type of the four corner alignment mark); wherein each rule of the plurality of rules is defined by at least one of: a presence of one or more other alignment marks at one or more first locations relative to the alignment mark, or an absence of one or more other alignment marks at one or more second locations relative to the alignment mark (given that the claims recite the limitations in the alternative “or” and “at least one of”, then Sabbir at least teaches on page 2244 that the template (rules) matching is to die alignment marks on the four corners, thus including the presence of the other corner die alignment marks relative to any one corner die alignment mark).
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.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabbir.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Sabbir teaches wherein, to detect the plurality of alignment marks, the at least one processing device is further to: obtain one or more additional images of the substrate, each additional image of the one or more additional images comprising a respective single alignment mark (Sabbir page 2243 section A, the assembly is imaged by approximately 357 images, therefore “additional images” are obtained besides the stitched image referred to in the independent claim rationale above, and where the stitched image includes all of the die alignment markers);
process the one or more additional images to determine a position and an orientation of the substrate based on each respective single alignment mark (Sabbir pages 2243–2244, fig. 6, the 357 images are stitched and resized into a final whole-wafer (substrate) image, and die alignment markers are identified, and a die shift calculated for each die, generating three values, x, y (position) and theta (orientation) for the die which is on the substrate); and
generate a model of the substrate based on the position and the orientation of the substrate (Sabbir page 2244, section B, calculated die shifts (position and orientation of the dies, and thus of the substrate that the dies are on) are fed back into the design system (thus in the aggregate, a model) and the dies are placed in the layout according to these center positions and rotations (model)).
While Sabbir teaches that 357 images are stitched together to form the whole-wafer image that is analyzed for global and die alignment markers, Sabbir does not explicitly teach that the individual ones of the 357 images each have their own respective single alignment mark. However, certainly within the stitched aggregate there are images with an alignment mark, else, the stitched image would not function to provide the alignment, and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (herein “PHOSITA”) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additional images used to determine the global alignment markers to be those actually having global alignment markers because doing so would be obvious to try – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–5, 11–12 and 18–19 are 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.
Specifically, claims 4, 11 and 18 all recite generating a modified image of the alignment mark based on the estimated location of the alignment mark, wherein other alignment marks of the plurality of alignment marks are not included in the modified image. The closest cited art of record includes primary reference Sabbir as applied in the independent claims and claims 3, 10 and 17, from which claims 4, 11 and 18 depend, and also Mueller et al., US 2023/0288822 A1 (herein “Mueller”). While Mueller teaches wherein, to determine the identity of the alignment mark, the at least one processing device is further to: determine an estimated location of the alignment mark based on the model and a design location of the alignment mark, wherein the design location corresponds to a design file of the substrate; and narrow a search field for the alignment mark by generating a modified image of the alignment mark based on the estimated location of the alignment mark in ¶¶67–73 and fig. 9 where a design file of a substrate is used to determine design locations of alignment marks, and where images are analyzed to determine second actual locations of the alignment marks, and where a camera is moved so that is field of view captures an expected alignment feature (thus narrowing a search field of the alignment mark). However neither Sabbir, Mueller or any of the other cited art of record teach or suggest in a combination obvious to a PHOSITA that “other alignment marks of the plurality of alignment marks are not included in the modified image.” Therefore claims 4, 11 and 18 distinguish over the cited art of record, and therefore claims 5, 12 and 19 which depend therefrom also distinguish over the cited art of record, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and also to overcome any claim objections set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mueller et al., US 2023/0288822 A1, referenced above in the allowable subject matter, discloses changing a camera position to image reference marks and determine differences between locations of alignment marks in a design file for the substrate and actual locations of alignment marks.
Mueller, US 2024/0201605 A1, directed towards substrate overlay alignment and die placement correction by evaluating die marks and global alignment marks.
Borowicz et al., US 2007/0067134 A1, directed towards inspection of a wafer using image processing techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M KOETH whose telephone number is (571)272-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 09:00-17:00, Friday 09:00-13:00, EDT/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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
MICHELLE M. KOETH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/MICHELLE M KOETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights