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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language, “[m]ethods, systems and devices for use in semiconductor package manufacture of a package having a die and die substrate are provided,” in the abstract is making the reader go into the Specification. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 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 of this title, 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, 16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US 2023/0360188 A1) (hereinafter Cleary) in view of Jeong (US 2011/0191050 A1) (hereinafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 1, Cleary discloses a test device [Abstract, Device for use in semiconductor package manufacture] comprising:
a first image capture device configured to capture a semiconductor substrate including a plurality of semiconductor dies and generate two-dimensional image data [Paragraph [0047], optical camera device 214, capturing package regions with die pads];
a plurality of second image capture devices each configured to capture the semiconductor substrate and generate three-dimensional image data when activated [Paragraph [0047], infrared device 212 and LIDAR 216, capturing package regions with die pads, with distance data captured]; and
a processor configured to activate one of the plurality of second image capture devices based on process scenario information related to semiconductor post-processes, and generate final three-dimensional image data [Paragraph [0040], [0104], Processor executing LIDAR sensors that generates distance data].
However, Cleary does not explicitly disclose the semiconductor post-processes including a marking process for the plurality of semiconductor dies, for performing the marking process based on the two-dimensional image data and the three-dimensional image data.
Jeong teaches the semiconductor post-processes including a marking process for the plurality of semiconductor dies, for performing the marking process based on the two-dimensional image data and the three-dimensional image data [Paragraph [0047], [0064]-[0080], polarity marks generated upon semiconductor inspection target based upon camera and LIDAR].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Cleary to add the teachings of Jeong as above, to provide a method of inspecting a three dimensional shape capable of easily and accurately performing a polarity inspection by accurately obtaining a location of a polarity mark (Jeong, Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is drawn to a method that recites limitations similar to the test device as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Regarding claim 20, device claim 20 is drawn to the device using/performing the similar test device as claimed in claim 1. Therefore device claim 20 corresponds to device claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15, 17-19 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, and overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejections outlined above.
Claims 2-15, 17-19 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights