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
Specification
Objection 1:
Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately. For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’.
In particular, ‘Figures 2A to 2I’ in the paragraph [0041], ‘Figures 3A to 3F’ in the paragraph [0042], ‘Figures 4A to 4E’ in the paragraph [0043], ‘Figures 5A to 5H’ in the paragraph [0044], ‘Figures 6A to 6D’ in the paragraph [0045], ‘Figures 7A to 7F’ in the paragraph [0046], ‘Figures 8A to 8H’ in the paragraph [0047] and ‘Figures 9A to 9H’ in the paragraph [0048] are objected.
See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction.
Objection 2:
The specification is objected to because paragraph [0053] refers to reference numeral 99′ as an "adhesive layer" and later as a "shrinkable release layer." Since paragraph [0054] also identifies reference numeral 99′ as the "shrinkable release layer," the terminology is inconsistent. Applicant is required to correct the specification so that reference numeral 99′ is consistently identified throughout the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the phrase "its structuring" lacks a clear antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the possessive pronoun "its" refers to the semiconductor component, the contact pad, the target carrier, or the shrinkable collecting layer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
The applicant could resolve the issue by expressly identifying the structure, for example:
• "...wherein the structuring of the semiconductor component is configured to penetrate into the shrinkable collecting layer..."
• "...wherein the structuring of the at least one contact pad is configured to penetrate into the shrinkable collecting layer..."
This removes the ambiguity created by the pronoun "its."
Regarding claim 25, the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) because the recited "a structuring" lacks sufficient structural definition. The claim does not specify where the structuring is formed (e.g., on the contact pad, semiconductor body, or elsewhere), yet subsequently recites that "the structuring engages in the shrinkable collecting layer." Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed semiconductor arrangement cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claims 20-29, because of their dependency on claim 19, these claims are also objected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 19.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because the limitation "mechanical and electrical fastening the contact pad to one of the at least two contact areas" is unclear. The recited limitation does not clearly define the affirmative method step to be performed. Furthermore, the specification describes "mechanical and electrical contacting" and a subsequent "contacting process," whereas the claim recites "mechanical and electrical fastening," rendering the intended scope of the claimed method unclear.
Suggested amendment:
Replace
“mechanical and electrical fastening the contact pad”
with
“mechanically and electrically contacting the contact pad”
to clearly recite the intended method step consistent with the disclosure.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the phrase "its edge region" is indefinite. The possessive pronoun "its" lacks a clear antecedent basis. It is unclear whether "its" refers to the contact pad, the structuring, or another claimed element. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably certain.
The ambiguity could be resolved by amending the claim to read, for example:
• "...wherein the structuring is arranged on the at least one contact pad at least in an edge region of the contact pad..."
or
• "...wherein the structuring is arranged in an edge region of the at least one contact pad..."
This eliminates the ambiguous pronoun.
Regarding claims 31-36, because of their dependency on claim 30, these claims are also objected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 30.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 19. The prior art made of record, including Budd et al. (US 20190088480), teaches a target carrier (e.g., handle wafer 26/40 and precision wafer transfer head 34A) for transferring semiconductor components 32A, wherein the semiconductor components comprise contact pads 22 and conductive structures 24. Budd further teaches a handle wafer having a release layer 28 and an adhesive layer 30 for temporarily attaching and transferring semiconductor components, wherein the release layer is selectively released by electromagnetic radiation during the transfer process.
However, Budd does not teach or suggest:
• wherein a lateral distance between two opposite edges of the shrinkable collecting layer around each of the at least two contact areas is smaller than a lateral dimension of the at least one contact pad; and
• wherein the shrinkable collecting layer around the at least two contact areas is designed such that its structuring is configured to penetrate into the shrinkable collecting layer with a substantially central alignment of the at least one contact pad relative to one of the at least two contact areas.
More specifically, Budd does not disclose a shrinkable collecting layer that is dimensioned relative to the contact pad so that the contact pad laterally overlaps the shrinkable collecting layer. Budd also does not disclose or suggest that a structuring on the semiconductor component penetrates into the shrinkable collecting layer to mechanically self-align the semiconductor component and substantially centrally align the contact pad with a corresponding contact area. Rather, Budd relies on alignment fiducials and a precision wafer transfer head (PWTH) to achieve positioning of the semiconductor components prior to transfer.
Accordingly, if the outstanding rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are overcome by amendment that does not materially alter the scope of these limitations, claim 19 would be in condition for allowance over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 30. The prior art made of record, including Budd et al. (US 20190088480), teaches a method for transferring semiconductor components including:
• providing at least one semiconductor component (e.g., semiconductor die 32A) comprising at least one contact pad 22 and conductive structures/vias 24;
• providing a target carrier including a handle wafer 26/40, a release layer 28, and an adhesive layer 30 for temporarily attaching semiconductor components to the target carrier;
• positioning the semiconductor component relative to the target carrier using a precision wafer transfer head (PWTH) and alignment fiducials;
• transferring the semiconductor component by selectively releasing portions of the release layer using electromagnetic radiation after positioning the semiconductor component.
However, Budd does not teach or suggest:
• providing a shrinkable collecting layer disposed around each of the at least two contact areas, wherein a lateral distance between opposite edges of the shrinkable collecting layer is smaller than a lateral dimension of the contact pad;
• positioning the semiconductor component such that the structuring engages in the shrinkable collecting layer;
• placing the contact pad on an edge of the shrinkable collecting layer over one of the at least two contact areas;
• performing a shrinking process such that the shrinkable collecting layer pulls the contact pad against the contact area; or
• mechanically and electrically contacting (or fastening) the contact pad after such shrink-induced alignment.
More particularly, Budd neither teaches nor suggests a transfer process in which a structuring of the semiconductor component penetrates or engages a shrinkable collecting layer so that shrinkage of the collecting layer mechanically self-aligns the semiconductor component with a corresponding contact area. Rather, Budd relies on alignment fiducials, a precision wafer transfer head (PWTH), and selective laser release of a release layer to achieve positioning prior to transfer.
Accordingly, if the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) directed to the recitation "mechanical and electrical fastening the contact pad to one of the at least two contact areas" is overcome by amendment that does not materially alter the scope of the claimed method, the prior art of record does not appear to teach or render obvious the subject matter of claim 30. Therefore, claim 30 would be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10A-3P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights