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
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 6, line 2 delete “first’ direction” and insert therein - - first direction - - for form. 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.
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 1-3 and 8-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first moving body configured to move to a first position to pick up a first uppermost die of a first die stack among the plurality of die stacks, and then half-flip the first uppermost die in the first direction to move the first uppermost die to a second position”. The limitation “to pick up a first uppermost die” is unclear and confusing as while a moving body is configured to move it is unclear how a moving body is configured to pick up a die? It appears the first moving body includes an adsorption surface to pick up the die (e.g. see claim 2). It is suggested to insert - - including an adsorption surface - - after “a first moving body” to overcome this rejection. Alternatively, it is suggested to delete “first moving body” from the claims and insert therein - - first moving means - - or other nonce term so that the limitation clearly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to overcome this rejection (see further MPEP 2181).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second moving body configured to move to the second position to receive the first uppermost die of the first die stack from the first moving body, and after the movement of the first moving body, half-flip the first uppermost die of the first die stack in the first direction at the second position to move the first uppermost die to a third position above an uppermost die of a second die stack among the plurality of die stacks”. The limitations “to receive the first uppermost die” and “half-flip the first uppermost die” are unclear and confusing as while a moving body is configured to move it is unclear how a moving body is configured to receive and half-flip a die? It appears the second moving body includes an adsorption surface to receive and half-flip the die (e.g. see claim 4). It is suggested to insert - - including an adsorption surface - - after “a second moving body” to overcome this rejection. Alternatively, it is suggested to delete “second moving body” from the claims and insert therein - - second moving means - - or other nonce term so that the limitation clearly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to overcome this rejection (see further MPEP 2181).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the first moving body, the second moving body, and the third moving body are provided in plural, and simultaneously or sequentially automate and half-flip an uppermost die of a continuous die stack”. The limitation “simultaneously or sequentially automate and half-flip an uppermost die of a continuous die stack” is unclear and confusing as to does each of the plural the first moving body, the second moving body, and the third moving body half-flip an uppermost die of the same stack or of different stacks? Further, it is unclear what is “a continuous die stack” as the die stack is a finite number of dies stacked on the substrate and not continuous.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a first moving body configured to simultaneously move upwards in a first direction and a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction”. The limitation is unclear and confusing as to how a moving body moving upwards in a first direction can also simultaneously move upwards in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction? It appears the first moving body moving upwards in the second direction (Z direction) is moving in/along the first direction (Y direction) (see Figure 4B of the instant specification and as is consistent with the arc-shaped path of claim 12). It is suggested to delete “a first moving body configured to simultaneously move upwards in a first direction and a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction” and insert therein - - a first moving body configured to simultaneously move in a first direction and upwards in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a first moving body configured to simultaneously move upwards in a first direction and a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, to pick up an uppermost die of a first die stack, among the plurality of die stacks, to half-flip the picked uppermost die toward a second die stack adjacent thereto”. The limitation “to pick up an uppermost die” is unclear and confusing as while a moving body is configured to move it is unclear how a moving body is configured to pick up a die? It appears the first moving body includes an adsorption surface to pick up the die (see claim 14). It is suggested to insert - - including an adsorption surface - - after “a first moving body” to overcome this rejection. Alternatively, it is suggested to delete “first moving body” from the claims and insert therein - - first moving means - - or other nonce term so that the limitation clearly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to overcome this rejection (see further MPEP 2181).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a second moving body configured to simultaneously move downwards in the first direction and the second direction”. The limitation is unclear and confusing as to how a moving body moving downwards in a first direction can also simultaneously move downwards in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction? It appears the second moving body moving downwards in the second direction (Z direction) is moving in/along the first direction (Y direction) (see Figure 4E and as is consistent with the arc-shaped path of claim 13). It is suggested to delete “a second moving body configured to simultaneously move downwards in the first direction and the second direction” and insert therein - - a second moving body configured to simultaneously move in the first direction and downwards in the second direction - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a second moving body configured to simultaneously move downwards in the first direction and the second direction, to receive the half-flipped uppermost die of the first die stack to half-flip the received uppermost die on an upper surface of an uppermost die of the second die stack”. The limitations “to receive the half-flipped upper most die” and “to half-flip the received uppermost die” are unclear and confusing as while a moving body is configured to move it is unclear how a moving body is configured to receive and half-flip a die? It appears the second moving body includes an adsorption surface to receive the die (see claim 15). It is suggested to insert - - including an adsorption surface - - after “a second moving body” to overcome this rejection. Alternatively, it is suggested to delete “second moving body” from the claims and insert therein - - second moving means - - or other nonce term so that the limitation clearly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to overcome this rejection (see further MPEP 2181).
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the first moving body, the second moving body, and the third moving body are provided in plural, and are configured to simultaneously or sequentially automate and half-flip an uppermost die of a continuous die stack”. The limitation “simultaneously or sequentially automate and half-flip an uppermost die of a continuous die stack” is unclear and confusing as to does each of the plural the first moving body, the second moving body, and the third moving body half-flip an uppermost die of the same stack or of different stacks? Further, it is unclear what is “a continuous die stack” as the die stack is a finite number of dies stacked on the substrate and not continuous.
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.
Claims 1, 9-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0385972).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a first material or article worked upon (e.g. chip 60) flip bonding device comprising: a substrate holder (considered to comprise platform 11 and part 35) configured to provide a second material or article worked upon (e.g. disc 12) including a plurality of the first materials or articles worked upon; a first moving body of a first moving pickup head (32) configured to move to a first position to pick up a first material or article worked upon, and then half-flip (“half-flip” as claimed interpreted as a rotation of 90o) the first material or article worked upon in a first direction to move the first material or article worked upon to a second position; and a second moving body of a second moving pickup head (34) configured to move to the second position to receive the first material or article worked upon from the first moving body, and after the movement of the first moving body, half-flip the first material or article worked upon in the first direction at the second position to move the first material or article worked upon to a third position above the substrate holder (above part 35) (Figures 1, 3, and 9 and Paragraphs 0040, 0045, 0046, and 0055).
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “die flip bonding”, “to provide a substrate including a plurality of die stacks having a gap in a first direction, the plurality of die stacks being wire-bonded”, “to pick up a first uppermost die of a first die stack among the plurality of die stacks, and then half-flip the first uppermost die in the first direction to move the first uppermost die to a second position” and “to receive the first uppermost die of the first die stack from the first moving body, and after the movement of the first moving body, half-flip the first uppermost die of the first die stack in the first direction at the second position to move the first uppermost die to a third position above an uppermost die of a second die stack among the plurality of die stacks”, the claims are directed to a device/apparatus wherein these limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon and/or functional limitations. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP 2114). Jiang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above which structure is configured for “die flip bonding”, “to provide a substrate including a plurality of die stacks having a gap in a first direction, the plurality of die stacks being wire-bonded”, “to pick up a first uppermost die of a first die stack among the plurality of die stacks, and then half-flip the first uppermost die in the first direction to move the first uppermost die to a second position” and “to receive the first uppermost die of the first die stack from the first moving body, and after the movement of the first moving body, half-flip the first uppermost die of the first die stack in the first direction at the second position to move the first uppermost die to a third position above an uppermost die of a second die stack among the plurality of die stacks” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon placed/provided on the substrate holder are a substrate (extending across both platform 11 and part 35) including a plurality of die stacks having a gap in a first direction (a stack below the first moving body and a stack below the second moving body), the plurality of die stacks being wire-bonded so that the first moving body moves to the first position to pick up a first uppermost die of a first die stack among the plurality of die stacks, and then half-flip the first uppermost die in the first direction to move the first uppermost die to the second position and the second moving body moves to the second position to receive the first uppermost die of the first die stack from the first moving body, and after the movement of the first moving body, half-flip the first uppermost die of the first die stack in the first direction at the second position to move the first uppermost die to a third position (above the part 35 of the substrate holder) above an uppermost die of a second die stack among the plurality of die stacks.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are directed to the materials or articles worked upon and/or functional limitations. Jiang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above and is configured for “wherein the plurality of die stacks on the substrate holder comprises at least two dies stacked on the substrate, the substrate and a first die stacked on the substrate or the first die and a second die stacked on the first die are bonded with a first adhesive film, the first die or the second die and the uppermost die are bonded with the first adhesive film and a second adhesive film, the first adhesive film includes a low-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 120oC or less, and the second adhesive film includes a high-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 150oC or less and at a temperature greater than a curing temperature of the low-temperature adhesive film” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon placed/provided on the substrate holder including the plurality of die stacks on the substrate holder comprises at least two dies stacked on the substrate, the substrate and a first die stacked on the substrate or the first die and a second die stacked on the first die are bonded with a first adhesive film, the first die or the second die and the uppermost die are bonded with the first adhesive film and a second adhesive film, the first adhesive film includes a low-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 120oC or less, and the second adhesive film includes a high-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 150oC or less and at a temperature greater than a curing temperature of the low-temperature adhesive film.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are directed to the materials or articles worked upon and/or functional limitations. Jiang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above and is configured for “wherein the second position is at an intermediate position between the first die stack and the second die stack” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon placed on the substrate holder include a first die stack on one side of the second position and below the first moving body and a second die stack on the other side of the second position and below the second moving body.
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses a first material or article worked upon (e.g. chip 60) flip bonding device, comprising: a first moving body of a first moving pickup head (32) configured to simultaneously move in a first direction and upwards in a second direction (the claim limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above), perpendicular to the first direction, to pick up a first material or article worked upon to half-flip the picked first material or article worked upon toward a second moving body adjacent thereto; and a second moving body of a second moving pickup head (34) configured to simultaneously move in the first direction and downwards in the second direction, to receive the half-flipped first material or article worked upon to half-flip the received first material or article worked upon over a substrate holder (comprising part 35) (Figures 1, 3, and 9 and Paragraphs 0040, 0045, 0046, and 0055).
Regarding claim 12, the half-flipping of the first moving body taught by Jiang is configured to move the first material or article worked upon in the first direction and rise the first material or article worked upon in the second direction, to have an arc-shaped path (Figures 1, 3, and 9).
Regarding claim 13, the half-flipping of the second moving body taught by Jiang is configured to move the half-flipped first material or article worked upon in the first direction and descend the half-flipped first material or article worked upon in the second direction to have an arc-shaped path (Figures 1, 3, and 9).
As to the limitations in claim 11 of “die flip bonding device for flipping and stacking an uppermost die of at least one die stack onto an uppermost die of an adjacent die stack, in a plurality of die stacks in which a substrate is connected to a plurality of dies stacked on the substrate by wire-bonding”, “to pick up an uppermost die of a first die stack, among the plurality of die stacks, to half-flip the picked uppermost die toward a second die stack adjacent thereto”, and “to receive the half-flipped uppermost die of the first die stack to half-flip the received uppermost die on an upper surface of an uppermost die of the second die stack”, these limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon and/or functional limitations. Jiang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above which structure is configured for “die flip bonding device for flipping and stacking an uppermost die of at least one die stack onto an uppermost die of an adjacent die stack, in a plurality of die stacks in which a substrate is connected to a plurality of dies stacked on the substrate by wire-bonding”, “to pick up an uppermost die of a first die stack, among the plurality of die stacks, to half-flip the picked uppermost die toward a second die stack adjacent thereto”, and “to receive the half-flipped uppermost die of the first die stack to half-flip the received uppermost die on an upper surface of an uppermost die of the second die stack” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon placed/provided on the substrate holder include a plurality of die stacks (a stack below the first moving body and a stack below the second moving body the stack below the second moving body separated from the descended second moving body by the thickness of a die) in which a substrate (extending across both platform 11 and part 35) is connected to a plurality of dies stacked on the substrate by wire-bonding so that the first moving body picks up an uppermost die of a first die stack, among the plurality of die stacks, to half-flip the picked uppermost die toward a second die stack adjacent thereto and the second moving body receives the half-flipped uppermost die of the first die stack to half-flip the received uppermost die on an upper surface of an uppermost die of the second die stack (above the part 35 of the substrate holder) for flipping and stacking an uppermost die of at least one die stack onto an uppermost die of an adjacent die stack.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are directed to the materials or articles worked upon and/or functional limitations. Jiang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above and is configured for “wherein at least one of the plurality of die stacks comprises at least two dies stacked on the substrate, the substrate and a first die stacked on the substrate or the first die and a second die stacked on the first die are bonded with a first adhesive film, the first die or the second die and the uppermost die are bonded with the first adhesive film and a second adhesive film, the first adhesive film includes a low-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 120oC or less, and the second adhesive film includes a high-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 150oC or less and at a temperature greater than a curing temperature of the low-temperature adhesive film” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon placed/provided on the substrate holder include at least one of the plurality of die stacks comprises at least two dies stacked on the substrate, the substrate and a first die stacked on the substrate or the first die and a second die stacked on the first die are bonded with a first adhesive film, the first die or the second die and the uppermost die are bonded with the first adhesive film and a second adhesive film, the first adhesive film includes a low-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 120oC or less, and the second adhesive film includes a high-temperature adhesive film that is cured at 150oC or less and at a temperature greater than a curing temperature of the low-temperature adhesive film.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are directed to the materials or articles worked upon and/or functional limitations. Jiang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above and is configured for “wherein the half-flipping of the first moving body is performed such that the uppermost die of the first die stack is located at an intermediate position between the first die stack and the second die stack” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon placed/provided on the substrate holder include a first die stack on one side of the half-flipping of the first moving body and below the first moving body and a second die stack on the other side of the half-flipping of the first moving body and below the second moving body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-8, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a die flip bonding device as claimed and including wherein the first moving body is configured to move in the first direction and in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, the first moving body comprises, a first outer case; a first rotational axis in the first outer case; a first cam configured to rotate along the first rotational axis; and a first camshaft configured to extend from the first cam to an uppermost die of the plurality of die stacks, and an end surface of the first camshaft includes an adsorption surface configured to vacuum-adsorb the uppermost die.
Regarding claims 14-18, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a die flip bonding device for flipping and stacking an uppermost die of at least one die stack onto an uppermost die of an adjacent die stack, in a plurality of die stacks in which a substrate is connected to a plurality of dies stacked on the substrate by wire-bonding as claimed and including wherein the first moving body comprises a first outer case; a first rotational axis in the first outer case; a first cam configured to rotate along the first rotational axis; and a first camshaft extending from the first cam to the uppermost die of the first die stack, and an end surface of the first camshaft includes an adsorption surface configured to vacuum-adsorb the uppermost die or the second moving body comprises a second outer case; a second rotational axis installed in the second outer case; a second cam configured to rotate along the second rotational axis; and a second camshaft extending from the second cam to the half-flipped uppermost die of the first die stack, and an end surface of the second camshaft includes an adsorption surface configured to vacuum-absorb the uppermost die of the first die stack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0144218) discloses a chip bonding apparatus comprising: a chip supply unit (10); a first moving body including a vacuum suction head (40) configured to move to a first position to pick up a chip (60), and then half-flip the chip in a first direction to move the chip to a second position; and a second moving body including a vacuum suction head (30) configured to move to the second position to receive the chip from the first moving body, and after the movement of the first moving body, half-flip the chip in the first direction and upwards in a second direction at the second position to move the chip to a third position below a substrate supply unit (20) (Figures 1 and 4 and Paragraphs 0034-0037 and 0045-0051).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights