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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-11 filed on 01/03/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Application No. JP2024-004658 filed on 01/16/2024. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
It is noted that no certified English translation is in the official record for the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 01/03/2025 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: HV.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification filed on 01/03/2025 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “the threshold”, in line 2, should read “the predetermined threshold”
In claim 7, “the threshold”, in line 5, should read “the predetermined threshold”
In claim 9, “the threshold”, in line 2, should read “the predetermined threshold”
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “normally bonded” which is subjective and therefore indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b) IV. For the purpose of examination: “normally bonded” will be interpreted as attached in a manner in accordance with the intended design.
The claim recites “abnormally bonded” which is subjective and therefore indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b) IV. For the purpose of examination: “abnormally bonded” will be interpreted as attached in a manner not in accordance with the intended design.
The claim recites “cannot be detached” which is subjective and therefore indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b) IV. It is unclear whether the term “cannot be detaches” refers to the bonding makes it impossible to separate the objects by any means or inseparable to some lesser degree. For the purpose of examination: “cannot be detached” will be interpreted as unable to separate without the use of specialized tools.
The claim recites “can be detached” which is subjective and therefore indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b) IV. It is unclear whether the term “can be detached” refers to the objects being bonded in a non-permanent manner or whether the objects are in contact not bonded together. For the purpose of examination: “can be detached” will be interpreted as the objects being in contact but not bonded together.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the command value” in line 6. It is unclear whether “the command value” refers to “a supplied command value”, in claim 4 line 2, or “a command value” in claim 4 line 3. For the purpose of examination: “a command value”, in claim 4 line 3, will be treated as “the command value”
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “error output”, in line 3, which is a subjective term and therefore indefinite. It is unclear what would constitute “error output”. For the purpose of examination: “error output” will be interpreted to mean error used by a controller to execute control behavior.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “error output”, in line 3, which is a subjective term and therefore indefinite. It is unclear what would constitute “error output”. For the purpose of examination: “error output” will be interpreted to mean error used by a controller to execute control behavior.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites, “the processed substrate” in line 5. There is no prior mention of “a processed substrate” which makes the term “the processed substrate” indefinite for lack of antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). For the purpose of examination, “the processed substrate” will be interpreted as “a processed substrate”.
Claims 5-7 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons as outlined above
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.
Claims 1-3, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et. al. (US 20200343216 A1), in view of Farnworth et. al. (US 6150828 A).
Regarding claim 1, Otsuka discloses A bonding apparatus that bonds a first object and a second object, ([0008]: “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a bonding apparatus for bonding substrates together”) comprising: a first holder configured to suck and hold the first object; ([0008]: “including: a first holding part configured to adsorptively hold a first substrate by vacuum-drawing the first substrate on a lower surface of the first substrate;”) a second holder configured to hold the second object; ([0008]: “a second holding part provided below the first holding part and configured to adsorptively hold a second substrate by vacuum-drawing the second substrate on an upper surface of the second substrate;”) a driving mechanism configured to perform an approximating operation of moving the first holder and the second holder close to each other to bring the first object and the second object into contact with each other, ([0008]: “a pressing member provided in the first holding part and configured to press a central portion of the first substrate;”, see adjusting horizontal S10, adjusting vertical S11 and pressing the central portions S12 as illustrated in figure 10); and a controller configured to control an operation of the driving mechanism and a holding force of the first object by the first holder, ([0044]: “The program storage part also stores a program for controlling the operations of driving systems of the above-described various processing apparatuses, the transfer devices and the like to realize a wafer bonding process (to be described later) in the bonding system 1.”; [0080] The detection results of the sensors 175 are outputted to the control part 70. The control part 70 controls the operations of the suction portions 172 to 174 based on the detection results of the sensors 175.”; [0085] “In the present embodiment, the case where the suction timing of the second suction portions 173 is controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175 has been described. However, the suction force of the second suction portions 173 may be further controlled. In addition, other suction portions 172 and 174 may be controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175.”).
Otsuka does not explicitly teach “and a separating operation of moving the first holder and the second holder away from each other after the approximating operation;”; “wherein the controller controls the driving mechanism to perform the separating operation while applying the holding force to the first object by the first holder”.
Farnworth further teaches and a separating operation of moving the first holder and the second holder away from each other after the approximating operation; ([Column 5 line 49]: “In an alternative embodiment of the invention, the assembly process includes robot arm system 12 driving until physical contact is established between the die and the temporary package base. After physical contact is established, robot arm system 12 drives to minimum programmed assembly interlocking height. The primary gripper 52 releases the lid and/or clip (restraining device) and the die and then retracts to a waiting position. Electrical continuity of the assembly is tested. If the assembly has electrical continuity between the die and the temporary package, the process is completed. If electrical continuity is not established, the primary gripper 52 retrieves the die, lid and/or restraining device components and awaits instruction from the operator.”; [Column 10 line 56] “It should be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to a restraining device which includes clips and lids. Any method of restraint is possible.”, where the primary gripper is the first holder and the restraining device is the second holder). wherein the controller controls the driving mechanism to perform the separating operation while applying the holding force to the first object by the first holder. ([Column 5 line 65]: “The apparatus has a control mechanism, including a microprocessor and associated program routines, that selectively controls the robot arm (i) to move the primary gripper to pick up a restraining device and (if lid and other elements of the restraining device such as a spring/clip combination are separate components) to a lid feeder station to pick up a lid, (ii) to move the primary gripper along with the restraining device to pick up the die following photographing by the rough die camera,”; [Column 10 line 56] “It should be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to a restraining device which includes clips and lids. Any method of restraint is possible.”, where the method of restraint is a suction force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Otsuka to incorporate the teachings of Farnworth so as to include a separating operation of moving the first holder and the second holder away from each other after the approximating operation. Doing so would allow for the objects to be bonded together in a high volume, cost-efficient and reliable manner (Farnworth, [Column 3, line 51]: “Accordingly, there remains a long-felt need in the semiconductor industry to provide for improved methods and apparatus for assembling dice to be tested with temporary packages (and subsequently disassembling the dice from the packages) in a high volume, cost-efficient and reliable manner. ”).
Regarding claim 2, Otsuka in view of Farnworth teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Otsuka does not explicitly teach “ wherein the holding force is a holding force at which the first object normally bonded to the second object by the approximating operation”
Farnworth further teaches wherein the holding force is a holding force at which the first object normally bonded to the second object by the approximating operation ([Column 7 line 57]: “It should be appreciated that the use of the invention for this purpose should be considered merely exemplary and that the techniques and mechanisms described herein can be used whenever it is desired to accurately position, bond or attach dice.”; [Column 5, line 33] “During the assembly process, the robot preferably drives the primary gripper carrying the die with the superimposed restraining device downwardly over the package base to a minimum programmed package assembly interlocking height and tests the completed assembly for continuity. If continuity is confirmed, the robot then releases the die restraining device and die.”, where continuity being confirmed indicates that the device is normally bonded) cannot be detached from the second object, and the first object abnormally bonded to the second object by the approximating operation can be detached from the second object and held. ([Column 5, line 33]: “If continuity is not established, the robot increments downward to a maximum programmed force setting. If continuity is still not established, the restraining device and die are removed from the package base.”, where continuity not being established indicates that the object is abnormally bonded).
The reasons to combine Farnworth into Otsuka are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Otsuka in view of Farnworth teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Otsuka further teaches wherein the controller cancels suction and holding of the first object by the first holder after the first object and the second object contact each other by the approximating operation, (Otsuka, [0008]: “including: a first holding part configured to adsorptively hold a first substrate by vacuum-drawing the first substrate on a lower surface of the first substrate;”; “a pressing member provided in the first holding part and configured to press a central portion of the first substrate;”; [0119] “In step S13, the operation of the first vacuum pump 172b is stopped to stop the vacuum- drawing of the upper wafer W.sub.U from the first suction portions 172.”; [0122] “The operation of the second vacuum pump 173b is stopped in a state in which the central portion of the upper wafer W.sub.U and the central portion of the lower wafer W.sub.L are pressed against each other by the pressing member 190 as shown in FIG. 13.”; [0123] “As shown in FIG. 14, the operation of the third vacuum pump 174b is stopped, and the vacuum-drawing of the upper wafer W.sub.U from the third suction portion 174 is stopped.”).
Otsuka does not explicitly teach “and controls the first holder to suck and hold again the first object before the separating operation.”
Farnworth further teaches and controls the first holder to suck and hold again the first object before the separating operation. ([Column 5, line 33]: “During the assembly process, the robot preferably drives the primary gripper carrying the die with the superimposed restraining device downwardly over the package base to a minimum programmed package assembly interlocking height and tests the completed assembly for continuity. If continuity is confirmed, the robot then releases the die restraining device and die. If continuity is not established, the robot increments downward to a maximum programmed force setting. If continuity is still not established, the restraining device and die are removed from the package base. A new package base is placed in the predetermined assembly position and the fine die, rough package, and fine package pictures are retaken.”; [Column 17 line 51] “Vacuum quill 90 (see FIG. 5C) holds both a lid 306 and a bare die 202 during an assembly or disassembly sequence. ”, where removal from the package base requires the primary gripper to hold again the first object before removal).
The reasons to combine Farnworth into Otsuka are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Otsuka discloses a bonding method of bonding a first object and a second object, ([0008]: “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a bonding apparatus for bonding substrates together”) comprising: performing an approximating operation of moving, close to each other, a first holder configured to suck and hold the first object ([0008]: “including: a first holding part configured to adsorptively hold a first substrate by vacuum-drawing the first substrate on a lower surface of the first substrate;”) and a second holder configured to hold the second object, ([0008]: “a second holding part provided below the first holding part and configured to adsorptively hold a second substrate by vacuum-drawing the second substrate on an upper surface of the second substrate;”) to bring the first object and the second object into contact with each other; , ([0008]: “a pressing member provided in the first holding part and configured to press a central portion of the first substrate;”, see adjusting horizontal S10, adjusting vertical S11 and pressing the central portions S12 as illustrated in figure 10););
Otsuka does not explicitly teach “and a separating operation of moving the first holder and the second holder away from each other after the approximating operation”; “wherein the separating operation is performed while applying the holding force to the first object by the first holder.”
Farnworth further teaches and performing a separating operation of moving the first holder and the second holder away from each other after the approximating operation, ([Column 5, line 33]: “During the assembly process, the robot preferably drives the primary gripper carrying the die with the superimposed restraining device downwardly over the package base to a minimum programmed package assembly interlocking height and tests the completed assembly for continuity. If continuity is confirmed, the robot then releases the die restraining device and die. If continuity is not established, the robot increments downward to a maximum programmed force setting. If continuity is still not established, the restraining device and die are removed from the package base. A new package base is placed in the predetermined assembly position and the fine die, rough package, and fine package pictures are retaken.”); wherein the separating operation is performed while applying the holding force to the first object by the first holder. ([Column 5 line 65]: “The apparatus has a control mechanism, including a microprocessor and associated program routines, that selectively controls the robot arm (i) to move the primary gripper to pick up a restraining device and (if lid and other elements of the restraining device such as a spring/clip combination are separate components) to a lid feeder station to pick up a lid, (ii) to move the primary gripper along with the restraining device to pick up the die following photographing by the rough die camera,”; [Column 10 line 56] “It should be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to a restraining device which includes clips and lids. Any method of restraint is possible.”, where the method of restraint is a suction force).
The reasons to combine Farnworth into Otsuka are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Otsuka in view of Farnworth teaches An article manufacturing method comprising: bonding a first object to a second object using a bonding apparatus defined in claim 1;. ([0008]: “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a bonding apparatus for bonding substrates together”)
Otsuka does not explicitly teach “and processing the second object to which the first object is bonded, wherein an article is manufactured from the processed substrate.”
Farnworth further teaches and processing the second object to which the first object is bonded, wherein an article is manufactured from the processed substrate. ([Column 3 line 56]: “Toward that end, the invention provides an automated apparatus for the positioning of bare electronic dice within temporary packages that is used in-line with other machines to facilitate formation of assembled packages which may then be subjected to continuity testing, burn-in and the like.”).
The reasons to combine Farnworth into Otsuka are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et. al. (US 20200343216 A1) in view of Farnworth et. al. (US 6150828 A) in view of Takahashi et. al. (US 20220199448 A1) further in view of Chang (US 20230307412 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Otsuka in view of Farnworth teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Otsuka further teaches and in a case where the command value exceeds ([0085]: “In the present embodiment, the case where the suction timing of the second suction portions 173 is controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175 has been described. However, the suction force of the second suction portions 173 may be further controlled. In addition, other suction portions 172 and 174 may be controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175.”, where the control is exerted throughout the entire process).
Otsuka in view of Farnworth does not explicitly teach “a predetermined threshold”
Takahashi further teaches a predetermined threshold ([0042]: “When any one of the cumulative values ΣΔx1 and ΣΔy1 of the amounts of positional deviation Δx1 and Δy1 exceeds the prescribed first threshold As in step S109 of FIG. 3, the control part 50 determines that another prescribed timing when the actual position correction is performed has arrived, and performs the actual position correction shown in steps S110 to S114 of FIG. 3. ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Otsuka in view of Farnworth to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi so as to include a predetermined threshold. Doing so would improve bonding quality while maintaining productivity (Takahashi, [0010]: “Here, an objective of the present invention is to optimize timing of actual position correction, and improve bonding quality while maintaining productivity.”).
Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi does not explicitly teach “wherein the driving mechanism includes an actuator configured to drive based on a supplied command value, the controller performs feedback control to adjust a command value supplied to the actuator based on a difference between a target driving amount and actual driving amount of the actuator,”.
Chang further teaches wherein the driving mechanism includes an actuator configured to drive based on a supplied command value, the controller performs feedback control to adjust a command value supplied to the actuator based on a difference between a target driving amount and actual driving amount of the actuator, (Chang, [0028]: “In some embodiments, the translation element may comprise one or more actuators and/or motors coupled to the pick-up head.”; [0034] “Still referring to FIGS. 1C and 1D, if the positional relationship (or the second positional relationship) satisfies the alignment criteria, the manufacturing process may continue to a next step in which the die 20 is moved towards the wafer 10 for bonding, which will be discussed hereinafter in details. If the positional relationship (or the second positional relationship) fails to satisfy the alignment criteria, the processing unit 40 may be configured to generate another position correction instruction (also referred to as “a second position correction instruction”) based on the positional relationship (or the second positional relationship), and a position of the die 20 may be further adjusted to another aligned position (also referred to as “a second alignment position”) based on the position correction instruction (or the second position correction instruction) received from the processing unit 40. In some embodiments, the position correction instruction (or the second position correction instruction) is sent to the pick-and-place tool 30.”, where generating subsequent position correction instructions is feedback control and alignment criteria is a supplied command value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Chang so as to include a driving mechanism including an actuator controlled by a controller performing feedback control to adjust the command value based on the target driving amount and actual driving amount. Doing so would allow for better accuracy in the placement of the substrates thereby increasing the yield of the bonding process (Cang, [0002]: “The accuracy in the placement of the die on the wafer or package substrate needs to be well controlled to maintain the yield of the bonding process.”).
Regarding claim 5, Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Otsuka further teaches the controller performs an error output regarding a bonding error. ([0080]: “The detection results of the sensors 175 are outputted to the control part 70. The control part 70 controls the operations of the suction portions 172 to 174 based on the detection results of the sensors 175.”).
Otsuka does not explicitly teach “a start of the separating operation,”.
Farnworth further teaches a start of the separating operation, (Farnworth, [Column 6, line 15]: “The control routines also function to return the primary gripper to the predetermined assembly position and retrieve the die and restraining device in the event that continuity is not established with the temporary package base.”; [Column 19, line 63]: “It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the specific embodiments disclosed above may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the present invention.”).
Otsuka and Farnworth do not explicitly teach “wherein in a case where the command value does not exceed the threshold even a predetermined time after a start of the separating operation”
Takahashi further teaches wherein in a case where the command value does not exceed the threshold even a predetermined time after a start of the separating operation ([0037]: “Then, the control part 50 determines whether a prescribed timing when mark correction is performed has arrived in step S103 of FIG. 3. This determination may be based on, for example, whether a prescribed time has elapsed after start of the bonding or whether the bonding has been performed a prescribed number of times.” [0042] “When any one of the cumulative values ΣΔx1 and ΣΔy1 of the amounts of positional deviation Δx1 and Δy1 exceeds the prescribed first threshold As in step S109 of FIG. 3, the control part 50 determines that another prescribed timing when the actual position correction is performed has arrived, and performs the actual position correction shown in steps S110 to S114 of FIG. 3. ”).
The reasons to combine Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Otsuka further teaches wherein the controller sets a predetermined minimum holding force at which the first holder can hold the first object, performs the separating operation, obtains a command value when the first object is separated from the first holder, and decides the obtained command value as the threshold. ([0044]: “The program storage part also stores a program for controlling the operations of driving systems of the above-described various processing apparatuses, the transfer devices and the like to realize a wafer bonding process (to be described later) in the bonding system 1.”; [0080] The detection results of the sensors 175 are outputted to the control part 70. The control part 70 controls the operations of the suction portions 172 to 174 based on the detection results of the sensors 175.”; [0085] “In the present embodiment, the case where the suction timing of the second suction portions 173 is controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175 has been described. However, the suction force of the second suction portions 173 may be further controlled. In addition, other suction portions 172 and 174 may be controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175.”, where the stored program applied by the controller uses a minimum holding force and decides the obtained command values as appropriate).
Otsuka does not explicitly teach ” performs the separating operation,”.
Farnworth further teaches performs the separating operation, ([Column 5, line 33]: “If continuity is still not established, the restraining device and die are removed from the package base. A new package base is placed in the predetermined assembly position and the fine die, rough package, and fine package pictures are retaken.”).
The reasons to combine Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et. al. (US 20200343216 A1) in view of Farnworth et. al. (US 6150828 A) in view of Takahashi et. al. (US 20220199448 A1) in view of Chang (US 20230307412 A1), further in view of Matsuoka et. al. (US 20220332524 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Otsuka further teaches and the command value during an operation of the bonding apparatus, wherein the controller decides the threshold based on the history obtained ([0044]: “The program storage part also stores a program for controlling the operations of driving systems of the above-described various processing apparatuses, the transfer devices and the like to realize a wafer bonding process (to be described later) in the bonding system 1.”; [0080] The detection results of the sensors 175 are outputted to the control part 70. The control part 70 controls the operations of the suction portions 172 to 174 based on the detection results of the sensors 175.”; [0085] “In the present embodiment, the case where the suction timing of the second suction portions 173 is controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175 has been described. However, the suction force of the second suction portions 173 may be further controlled. In addition, other suction portions 172 and 174 may be controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175.”, where the history of the holding force and a command value are necessary for a controller to control the operation of the suction).
Otsuka does not explicitly teach “when the first object and the second object detach from each other owing to a bonding error.”
Farnworth further teaches when the first object and the second object detach from each other owing to a bonding error. ([Column 5, line 33]: “If continuity is not established, the robot increments downward to a maximum programmed force setting. If continuity is still not established, the restraining device and die are removed from the package base. A new package base is placed in the predetermined assembly position and the fine die, rough package, and fine package pictures are retaken.”, where not establishing continuity is a bonding error).
The reasons to combine Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang does not explicitly teach “further comprising a storage unit configured to store a history of the holding force”.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsuoka further teaches further comprising a storage unit configured to store a history of the holding force (Matsuoka, [0034]: “In some embodiments, the storage devices 204 can be used to further store and provide access to master data, processing results, and/or predetermined data/thresholds.”; “In some embodiments, the master data can include manipulation-related information regarding the objects, such as a CoM location on each of the objects, expected sensor measurements (e.g., force, torque, pressure, and/or contact measurements) corresponding to one or more actions/maneuvers, or a combination thereof. The robotic system can look up pressure levels (e.g., vacuum levels, suction levels, etc.), gripping/pickup areas (e.g., areas or banks of vacuum grippers to be activated), and other stored master data for controlling transfer robots.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Takahashi in view of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka so as to include a storage unit configured to store a history of the holding force. Doing so would allow for an improved robotic means for controlling and managing the robotic system (Matsuoka, [0004]: “Accordingly, there remains a need for improved robotic systems and techniques for controlling and managing various aspects of the robots.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et. al. (US 20200343216 A1) in view of Farnworth et. al. (US 6150828 A), further in view of Matsuoka et. al. (US 20220332524 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Otsuka in view of Farnworth teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Otsuka further teaches wherein the controller monitors a suction air flow rate in the first holder during the separating operation, ([0044]: “The program storage part also stores a program for controlling the operations of driving systems of the above-described various processing apparatuses, the transfer devices and the like to realize a wafer bonding process (to be described later) in the bonding system 1.”; [0080] The detection results of the sensors 175 are outputted to the control part 70. The control part 70 controls the operations of the suction portions 172 to 174 based on the detection results of the sensors 175.”; [0085] “In the present embodiment, the case where the suction timing of the second suction portions 173 is controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175 has been described. However, the suction force of the second suction portions 173 may be further controlled. In addition, other suction portions 172 and 174 may be controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175.”, where controller must monitor the air flow rate in order to maintain control of the suction where reducing suction is reduction in holding force and the program includes a threshold).
The reasons to combine Otsuka in view of Farnworth are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Otsuka in view of Farnworth does not explicitly teach “and in a case where the suction air flow rate exceeds a predetermined threshold”.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsuoka further teaches and in a case where the suction air flow rate exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0034]: “In some embodiments, the storage devices 204 can be used to further store and provide access to master data, processing results, and/or predetermined data/thresholds.”; “The robotic system can look up pressure levels (e.g., vacuum levels, suction levels, etc.), gripping/pickup areas (e.g., areas or banks of vacuum grippers to be activated), and other stored master data for controlling transfer robots.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Otsuka in view of Farnworth to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka so as to include a predetermined threshold for a suction airflow rate. Doing so would allow for an improved robotic means for controlling and managing the robotic system (Matsuoka, [0004]: “Accordingly, there remains a need for improved robotic systems and techniques for controlling and managing various aspects of the robots.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et. al. (US 20200343216 A1), in view of Farnworth et. al. (US 6150828 A), in view of Chang (US 20230307412 A1), further in view of Jeongseok et. al. (US 11478942 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Otsuka in view of Farnworth teaches the apparatus according to claim 8.
Otsuka further teaches after a start of the separating operation, ([0080]: “The detection results of the sensors 175 are outputted to the control part 70. The control part 70 controls the operations of the suction portions 172 to 174 based on the detection results of the sensors 175.”; [0085] “In the present embodiment, the case where the suction timing of the second suction portions 173 is controlled based on the detection result of the sensors 175 has been described.”).
The reasons to combine Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Matsuoka are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Matsuoka does not explicitly teach “the controller performs an error output regarding a bonding error.”
Chang further teaches the controller performs an error output regarding a bonding error. (Chang, [0028]: “In some embodiments, the translation element may comprise one or more actuators and/or motors coupled to the pick-up head.”; [0034] “Still referring to FIGS. 1C and 1D, if the positional relationship (or the second positional relationship) satisfies the alignment criteria, the manufacturing process may continue to a next step in which the die 20 is moved towards the wafer 10 for bonding, which will be discussed hereinafter in details. If the positional relationship (or the second positional relationship) fails to satisfy the alignment criteria, the processing unit 40 may be configured to generate another position correction instruction (also referred to as “a second position correction instruction”) based on the positional relationship (or the second positional relationship), and a position of the die 20 may be further adjusted to another aligned position (also referred to as “a second alignment position”) based on the position correction instruction (or the second position correction instruction) received from the processing unit 40. In some embodiments, the position correction instruction (or the second position correction instruction) is sent to the pick-and-place tool 30.”, where generating subsequent position correction instructions is feedback control which requires error output in order to function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Matsuoka to incorporate the teachings of Chang so as to include the controller performing an error output regarding a bonding error. Doing so would allow for better accuracy in the placement of the substrates thereby increasing the yield of the bonding process (Cang, [0002]: “The accuracy in the placement of the die on the wafer or package substrate needs to be well controlled to maintain the yield of the bonding process.”).
Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Matsuoka in view of Chang does not explicitly teach “wherein in a case where the suction air flow rate does not exceed the threshold even a predetermined time”.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeongseok further teaches wherein in a case where the suction air flow rate does not exceed the threshold even a predetermined time ([50]: “At block 472, a change in airflow in the first suction cup assembly between a first timestamp and second timestamp may be determined using a pressure sensor. For example, a pressure sensor may be disposed in or otherwise coupled to a suction cup of the first suction cup assembly. The pressure sensor may be different than the retractable pin sensor. The pressure sensor may be used to determine a transient or change in airflow (e.g., pressure measurement, etc.) in the first suction cup assembly between a first time and a second time. The change may be a result of decreased airflow due to a seal forming between the suction cup and an item that is grasped by the suction cup.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teachings of Otsuka in view of Farnworth in view of Matsuoka in view of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Jeongseok so as to include a case where the suction ai flow rate does not exceed the threshold in a predetermined time. Doing so would allow for an increase in throughput when using the gripping technology (Jeongseok, [13]: “As a result, throughput of fulfillment centers may be improved, and/or logistics of fulfillment center operations may be less complicated.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240170320 A1: Die Bonding device, die Bonding Method And Vacuum Control Method For Pick-And-Place Thereof
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAOS PHILLIP ZERVOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7767. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30am-5:00pm).
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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at 540-566-5633. 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.
/N.P.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights