Office Action 2: Final Rejection (2024-09-13)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
Amendments to the Claims:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions and listings of claims in the application:

1\. (Currently Amended) A method of assembling a flipchip semiconductor package, comprising:placing a semiconductor die having circuitry electrically coupled to bond pads having bumps with solder paste thereon onto bonding features of a package substrate; and
arc welding using a biased electrode having a tip spaced apart from the solder paste, wherein electrical current generated by the arc welding melts the solder paste to provide a solder connection, wherein an arc welding apparatus used includes a substrate holder having the package substrate thereon that is grounded, and wherein the package substrate is grounded by the substrate holder.
2\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the bumps comprise solder balls or pillars.
3\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the method excludes a solder reflow step.
4\. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising flux washing after applying the electrical current.
5\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein \[\[an\]\] the arc welding apparatus further includes a plurality of \[\[the\]\] biased electrodes, and wherein the arc welding simultaneously forms a plurality of \[\[the\]\] solder connections.
6\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the package substrate comprises a leadframe, and wherein the bonding features comprise leads.

7\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the tip is positioned at an angle from 150 to 450 relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate.

8\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the bond pads are all positioned along a periphery of the semiconductor die.

9\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the electrical current is in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA.

10\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the electrical current is applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec.

11\. (Cancelled)

12\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein there is solder flux on the bonding features.

13\. (Currently Amended) A method of assembling a semiconductor package, comprising:placing a semiconductor die having circuitry electrically coupled to electrical contacts with solder paste thereon onto bonding features of a package substrate; and
arc welding using a biased electrode having a tip spaced apart from the solder paste, wherein electrical current generated by the arc welding melts the solder paste to provide a solder connection, wherein an arc welding apparatus used includes a substrate holder having the package substrate thereon that is grounded, and wherein the package substrate is grounded by the substrate holder.

14\. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the package substrate comprises a leadframe, and wherein the bonding features comprise leads.

15\. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the tip is positioned at an angle from 150 to 450 relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate.

16\. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the bond pads are all positioned along a periphery of the semiconductor die.

17\. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the electrical current is in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA.

18\. (Original) The method of claim 13, wherein the electrical current is applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec.

19\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 13, wherein the electrical contacts comprise pillars.

20\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 13, wherein the electrical contacts comprise solder balls.

21\. (Original) The method of Claim 13, wherein the method excludes a solder reflow step.

22\. (Currently Amended) A method of assembling a semiconductor package, comprising:placing a semiconductor die having circuitry electrically coupled to electrical contacts with solder paste thereon onto bonding features of a package substrate; and
generating an arc using a biased electrode having a tip spaced apart from the solder paste to melt the solder paste to provide a solder connection, wherein an arc generating apparatus used includes a substrate holder having the package substrate thereon that is grounded, and wherein the package substrate is grounded by the substrate holder.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2022, is in compliance with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 - 9 of argument, filed  08/27/2024, with respect to independent claims 1, 13 and 22 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.  The previous rejection of claims 1-10, 12-22 has been upheld. Claims 11 is cancelled. No new claims have been added. With regard to the rejection of record based on previously considered prior art, Teshima, U.S. Patent No. 6280858 (Teshima),  Blankenship et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0 133488 (Blankenship), Kato et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0069466 (Kato), Azzalina (The Importance of Grounding While Welding) (Azzalina), Ho et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0350285 (Ho), Shimizu et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0335119 (Shimizu) , Matsuura et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0111136 (Matsuura) and Bayot, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0133573 (Bayot).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument on page 7 relative to the ground disclosed by Kato. The argument is not persuasive. The Examiner has used the reference Kato in conjunction with Azzalina in a 35 USC § 103 rejection to address the limitation “an arc welding apparatus used includes a substrate holder having the package substrate thereon that is grounded, and wherein the package substrate is grounded by the substrate holder.” See page 11 of Examiner’s Non-Final rejection.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has remarked “ The office action admitted Teshima did not disclose the above-referenced features. Blankenship is cited to disclose the components of the arc welding apparatus. Azzalina is cited to disclose the impact of grounding for welding.” Azzalina has not been only cited for the impact of grounding during welding. Azzalina is cited also to disclose the likelihood that, though the Teshima device does not explicitly teach grounding, the Teshima device would be grounded as anyone skilled in the art would expect an arc welded electrical device to be grounded by the substrate holder.
The Applicant does not address the rejection of the remaining claims.  Therefore, the previous rejections detailed in office action 04/05/2024 remains. Though claims 1, 5, 13, 19, 20, and 22 were amended.  The independent claims 1, 13, and 22 stand rejected. See Examiner’s arguments above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17- 18, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”) and further in view of Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488).
As for claim(s) 1, 13, and 22, a method of assembling a flip chip semiconductor package, comprising:
Placing a semiconductor die (substrate package (15) Teshima) having circuitry electrically coupled to bond pads (bond pads (12) Teshima) having bumps (bonding portion (13) Teshima)
With solder paste (tin-zinc alloy solder [col 10 line 66-68] Teshima) thereon onto bonding features ((12) and (13) Teshima) of a package substrate (package substrate 11 Teshima); and
Arc welding ([col 9 lines 19-22] Teshima) using a biased electrode (electrode (12) Blankenship et al.) having a tip spaced ((58) tip, inherent for arc welding, Fig. 4, Blankenship et al.) apart from the solder paste (tin-zinc alloy solder [col 10 line 66-68] Teshima) wherein
Electrical current generated by the arc welding (obvious) melts the solder paste (tin-zinc alloy solder ([col 10 line 66-68] Teshima) to provide a solder connection (bonding portion/solder bump (13), [col 11, lines 19-21] Teshima).
Wherein an arc welding apparatus (Fig. 17, Kato et al.) used includes a substrate holder (robot holding- Claim 1, Kato et al.) having the package substrate thereon that is grounded, and wherein
The package substrate (workpiece, [0017], Kato et al. ) is grounded by the substrate holder (robot holding- Claim 1, Kato et al.).
(Regarding claim(s) 1, 13 and 22, the use of arc welding in semiconductors is known in the art. Teshima discloses component (15) as an arc welded substrate to be flip chip mounted to another device. See [(SOIC) Small Outline Integrated Circuit, col 9, line 60, Teshima]. Specifically, Teshima teaches placing a semiconductor die having circuitry electrically coupled to bond pads having bumps with solder paste thereon onto bonding features of a package substrate utilizing arc welding, wherein electrical current generated by arc welding produces heat which melts the solder paste, providing a solder connection.  This process of using heat generated by the electrical current of arc welding is obvious, as this fusion method and resulting bond in the presence of solder, is well known in the art. It is also understood that when bonding materials by arc welding, the tip of the welding apparatus is apart from the workpiece and does not typically touch the solder, as the heat generated from the electrical charge, may be optimized to a temperature sufficient to melt solder paste without direct contact, given the relatively low melting point of solder. Hence, Teshima does not explicitly teach a biased electrode having a tip spaced apart from the solder paste.However, Blankenship et al. teaches a biased electrode having a tip spaced apart from the workpiece as illustrated in Fig. 4. And since it is known in the art to use arc welding for bonding semiconductor components, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the arc welding device of Blankenship et al. with the semiconductor fabrication scope and method of Teshima to fabricate a device that conforms to the design specification disclosed by the Applicant in the claims.)
Also, Teshima teaches the application of arc welding to electrically couple components to a substrate. Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of a substrate holder having the package substrate thereon that is grounded, wherein the package substrate is grounded by the substrate holder.
However, Kato et al. does teach an arc welding apparatus/method utilizing a substrate holder and having the package substrate thereon that is grounded. The use of an arc welding apparatus, employing a tip that never actually touches the solder, would benefit from a feature of the device that would securely hold the workpiece in place, and that would ground the workpiece given the electrical charge emitted from the welding method. The Examiner has already discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 22 above, the combination of the arc welding device of Blankenship et al. with the semiconductor fabrication scope and method of Teshima. It would follow that the implementation of the substrate holder of Kato et al. could be combined with the Teshima and Blankenship inventions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ground the apparatus and the package substrate, so as to both secure and ground the package substrate to protect against shock hazards. See Azzalina, Brandon, “The Importance of Grounding While Welding”)
As for claim(s) 3 and 21, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The method excludes a solder reflow step (obvious).
(Regarding claim(s) 3 and 21, Teshima teaches the methods of claims 1 and 13 for coupling bonding features through the process of arc welding.
Teshima does not explicitly teach the exclusion of a solder reflow step. It is well known in the art that the electrical current generated by the arc welding process both melts and bonds solder paste to provide a solder connection and would obviously, if not inherently exclude a solder reflow step as the arc created by the electric current flowing between the two electrodes, creates such an intense heat that the bonding of components would not need a reflow step. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the solder reflow step would be excluded from the device fabrication process.)
As for claim(s) 5, the method of claim 1, wherein
An arc welding ([0023], Blankenship et al.) apparatus used for the method includes a plurality ([0023], Blankenship et al.) of the biased electrodes (tandem electrodes (12), (14), (16), (18), Blankenship et al.), and wherein
The arc welding (0023, Blankenship et al.) simultaneously forms a plurality of the solder connections (Abstract, Blankenship).
(Regarding claim(s) 5, Blankenship teaches an arc welding apparatus and method including a plurality of biased electrodes programmed to cooperatively and systemically, execute a number of simultaneous operations in tandem. Specifically in [0023], Blankenship et al. employs a method wherein “ tandem electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 are arranged linearly and spaced apart along a direction designated the x-direction in FIGS. 1 and 2, and move together along the x-direction at a selected travel speed..” such that the electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 move along the designated x-direction simultaneously, at a common travel speed welding joints of a workpiece, thereby forming a plurality of the solder connections.Teshima teaches the forming of a plurality of solder connections as disclosed in Claim 15 of Teshima. …”electrically conductive bonding member comprises a plurality of bumps or leads provided in a high-density mounting.” The Examiner has shown in the previous rejection of claims 1, 13, and 22 above, that the arc welding apparatus of Blankenship et al. may be used in the method of assembling a flip chip semiconductor package disclosed in Teshima.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the inventions of Teshima and Blankenship et al. to fabricate a device that conforms to the design specification, i.e. an arc welding apparatus and method including a plurality of the biased electrodes, wherein the arc welding device of Blankenship et al. simultaneously forms a plurality of solder connections on the plurality of bumps of Teshima).
As for claims 6 and 14, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The package substrate comprises a lead frame (obvious), and wherein
The bonding features comprise leads (obvious).
(Regarding claim(s) 6 and 14, Teshima teaches a package substrate with bonding features. Teshima does not explicitly teach that the package substrate comprises a lead frame wherein the bonding features comprise leads. However, in col. 9 lines 64-67 and col. 10, lines 1-4, Teshima discloses that the methods of the claim are applicable to the field of mounting substrates. “For example, that field includes bonding of IC package and CPU for use in semiconductor field”. This disclosure would then obviously include the utilization of a package substrate comprising a lead frame, wherein the bonding features comprise leads, since IC packages involve the integration of circuits within lead frames.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the package substrate would comprise a lead frame, wherein the bonding features comprise leads, so as to use an industrially tested and accepted device/process/material.)
As for claim(s) 7 and 15, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The tip is positioned at an angle from 15 degrees to 45 degrees (optimize) relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate.
(Regarding claim(s) 7 and 15, Teshima does not explicitly teach an optimized tip position angle from 15 degrees to 45 degrees relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the angular position of the arc welding tip, so as to ensure the current is delivered to the optimized location for bonding device components. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.
The Applicant has not shown that the specific discovery of a tip position angle from 15 degrees to 45 degrees relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate is somehow unique, novel or cutting edge in the fabrication method and use of the disclosed device.
As for claim(s) 9 and 17, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The electrical current is in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA (optimize).
(Regarding claim(s) 9 and 17, Teshima  teaches arc welding, which inherently requires the use of an electrical current. Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of an electrical current  in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an electrical current strong enough to melt the solder, bonding the components, i.e., a current in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.) The Applicant has not shown that the specific discovery of an electrical current in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA is somehow unique, novel or cutting edge in the fabrication method and use of the disclosed device.
As for claims 10 and 18, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The electrical current is applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec (optimize).
(Regarding claim(s) 10 and 18, Teshima  teaches arch welding with inherently requires the use of an electrical current applied to a work piece for an amount of time.
Teshima does not explicitly teach that the electrical current is applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the electrical current long enough to sufficiently melt the solder and bond the components. i.e., for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.)
The Applicant has not shown that the specific discovery of an electrical current applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec is somehow unique, novel or cutting edge in the fabrication method and use of the disclosed device.
Claim(s) 2, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”) and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claims 1 and 13, and in further view of Ho et al. (US 20200350285).
As for claim(s) 2, 19 and 20, the methods of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The bumps comprise solder balls (Annotated Fig. 2B, Teshima below) or pillars ([0037] Ho et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
296
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Regarding claim(s) 2, 19 and 20 Teshima teaches the use of solder bumps to bond the substrate to the circuit.
Although the bonding portions of the Teshima Annotated Fig. 2B above do appear to be comprised of solder balls or pillars, Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of solder balls or pillars. Nonetheless, Ho et al. does teach the use of bumps comprising solder balls or pillars ([0037]). Solder balls require a small amount of solder and flux to be placed on the component such that the component can then be connected to the circuit board with a minimum of production heating.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to bond the package components using solder balls or pillars, so as to use an industrially tested and accepted device/process/material.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”), and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Shimizu et al. (US 20190335119).
As for claim 4, the method of claim 1, further comprising
Flux washing (flux washing, [131] Shimizu et al.) after applying the electrical current.
(Regarding claim(s) 4, Teshima  teaches the use of flux.
Teshima does not explicitly teach a flux washing process after applying the electrical current. However, it is known in the art that the arc welding process of Teshima melts solder paste to provide a solder connection. Hence, it would follow that solder may drip or pool on the substrate necessitating the need for cleaning of the substrate to ensure the proper functioning of the device.
Shimizu et al. does teach flux washing in [0131] after previously applying the electrical current  disclosed in [0130].  Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to remove excess flux by using a washer, a dryer, and a flux washing solution after the solder bonding step was completed, such as disclosed in the methods of Shimizu et al., so as to use a functioning, industrially tested and accepted device/process/material.)
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”) and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claims 1 and 13, and in further view of Matsuura et al. (US 20210111136).
As for claims 8 and 16, the method of claim 1, wherein
The bond pads (bond pad 181 Matsuura et al.) are all positioned along a periphery of the semiconductor die (substrate package (15) Teshima).
(Regarding claim(s) 8 and 16, Teshima  teaches a semiconductor die.
Teshima does not explicitly teach that the bond pads are all positioned along a periphery of the semiconductor die. Nonetheless, Matsuura et al. discloses in [0004] “bond pads connected to nodes in the circuitry all arranged along the periphery of the die”. Bonding pads along the periphery of the die would improve bonding efficiency during angle rotation of the device arm and tip, giving better access to tightly spaced bonding components within reach of the arm and electric arc emanating from the welding tip.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to position the bond pads along a periphery of the semiconductor die, so as to fabricate a device that conforms to the design specification.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466) and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claims 1, and in further view of Bayot, Arthur (US 20050133573).
As for claim 12, the method of claim 1, wherein
There is solder flux on the bonding features ([0020] Bayot).
(Regarding claim(s) 12, Teshima teaches the use of solder flux on the bonding features.
Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of solder flux on the bonding features, though the use of flux for semiconducting mounting is disclosed in [col 2, lines 8-24, Teshima].However, Bayot teaches solder flux on the bonding features. It is well known in the art to use flux when soldering as it increases the wetting ability of the solder, causing it to flow more uniformly over surfaces without beading up. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use solder flux on the bonding features of Teshima, as disclosed by Bayot, to prevent oxidation of the materials and allow for a free flow of solder over joints.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
The above-referenced patent application has been reviewed in light of the final office action dated September 13, 2024. Claims 1-10 and 12-22 are pending in the application. Claim 11 was cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 13, and 22 were amended. The amendments are based at least on the originally filed claims and on Fig.2 and paragraph [0017] of the published application. No new matter is added.
Applicant believes that the present application is in condition for allowance in view of the amendments above and for at least the reasons outlined below; thus, a prompt and favorable action is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima, U.S. Patent No. 6280858 ("Teshima") in view of Kato et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0069466 ("Kato") and Azzalina ("The Importance of Grounding While Welding") ("Azzalina") and further in view of Blankenship et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0133488 ("Blankenship"). Claims 2, 19, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Ho et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0350285 ("Ho"). Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Shimizu et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0335119 ("Shimizu"). Claims 8 and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Matsuura et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0111136 ("Matsuura"). Claim 12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Bayot, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0133573 ("Bayot"). Applicant respectfully traverses.
Claim 1 was amended to recite "an are welding apparatus used includes a plurality of biased electrodes, and wherein a first biased electrode is configured to form a first solder connection in a first plane and a second biased electrode is configured to form a second solder connection in a second plane, different from the first plane." The office action on page 8 indicates that Blankenship
discloses multiple electrodes for arc welding. Paragraph [0023] of Blankenship discloses that "the electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 are mounted to a common flange of a welding robot (not shown) so that the electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 move along the designated x-direction at a common travel speed." That is, the electrodes in Blankenship move along the x-direction to form weld joints in one plane. This is also shown in Fig. 2 of Blankenship reproduced below, where the electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 form weld joints in the plane along the x-direction. There is no disclosure in Blankenship to form weld joints in different planes. Thus, Blankenship fails to disclose or suggest the above-referenced features of claim 1.
FOG. 2
Teshima, Kato, and Azzalina do not remedy the deficiency of Blankenship. At least because the cited references (Teshima, Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship) fail to disclose all the features of claim 1 either alone or in combination, claim 1 as amended is patentable. Allowance of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
Claims 13 and 22 include similar features and are therefore patentable for at least the same reasons as outlined above.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21 depend from claims 1 and 13 and are therefore patentable for at least the same reasons as outlined above.
Claims 2, 19, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Ho. Ho is cited to disclose solder balls and pillars, so Ho does not remedy the deficiency of Blankenship. Thus, claims 1 and 13 are patentable over Teshima, Kato, Azzalina, Blankenship, and Ho. Claims 2, 19,
and 20 depend from claims 1 and 13 and are therefore patentable for at least the same reasons as outlined above.
Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshimain in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Shimizu. Shimizu is cited to disclose flux washing, so Shimizu does not remedy the deficiency of Blankenship. Thus, claim 1 is patentable over Teshima, Kato, Azzalina, Blankenship, and Shimizu. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and is therefore patentable for at least the same reasons as outlined above.
Claims 8 and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Matsuura. Matsuura is cited to disclose positioning bond pads along the periphery of the die, so Matsuura does not remedy the deficiency of Blankenship. Thus, claims 1 and 13 are patentable over Teshima, Kato, Azzalina, Blankenship, and Matsuura. Claims 8 and 16 depend from claims 1 and 13 and are therefore patentable for at least the same reasons as outlined above.
Claim 12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Teshima in view of Kato, Azzalina, and Blankenship and further in view of Bayot. Bayot is cited to disclose solder flux, so Bayot does not remedy the deficiency of Blankenship. Thus, claim 1 is patentable over Teshima, Kato, Azzalina, Blankenship, and Bayot. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and is therefore patentable for at least the same reasons as outlined above.
CONCLUSION

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2022, is in compliance with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of argument, filed  11/07/2024, with respect to independent claims 1, 5, 13 and 22 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.  The previous rejection of claims 1-10, 12-22 has been upheld. Claims 11 is cancelled. No new claims have been added. The rejection of record is based on previously considered prior art, Teshima, U.S. Patent No. 6280858 (Teshima),  Blankenship et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0 133488 (Blankenship), Kato et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0069466 (Kato), Azzalina (The Importance of Grounding While Welding) (Azzalina), Ho et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0350285 (Ho), Shimizu et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0335119 (Shimizu) , Matsuura et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0111136 (Matsuura) and Bayot, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0133573 (Bayot).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument on page 7 relative to the electrodes 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18 mounted to a common flange of a welding robot (not shown) disclosed by Blankenship. The argument is not persuasive. The Applicant has cited ¶ 0023  of Blankenship to show that the electrodes 12, 14, 16, and 18 move along the designated x-direction at a common travel speed to form weld joints in one plane as shown in Fig. 2 of Blankenship, where the electrodes 12, 14, 16, 1nd 18 form weld joint’s in the plane along the x-direction.
However, also cited in Blankenship in ¶ 0026, electrodes 12, 14, 16, and 18 also have a z-direction. “Each electrode has a stick-out of length A (indicated in FIG. 2 for the electrode 20) corresponding to a length of electrode wire sticking out of the electrode toward the weld. As best seen in FIG. 2, the electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 are staggered in height respective to the weld joint 24 so that the electrode 12 deposits deeper into the weld joint 24 than the electrode 14, the electrode 14 deposits deeper into the weld joint 24 than the electrode 16, and the electrode 16 deposits deeper into the weld joint 24 than the electrode 18. This arrangement facilitates each electrode depositing a weld bead substantially on top of the weld bead deposited by the earlier-passing electrode or electrodes. In another approach, the stickout of the electrodes can be shortened such that each electrode deposits weld material substantially on top of the weld material deposited by the earlier-passing electrode or electrodes.”
The stickout length indicated in Fig. 2 for the electrode 20 indicates the difference in height of each electrode indicating a different height or z-direction. As such the electrodes are in different z-planes as disclosed in the amended limitations of claims 1, 13, and 22.
The independent claims 1, 13, and 22 stand rejected, see Examiner’s arguments above, therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument on page 7 relative to the patentability of claims 2-10, 12, and 14-21. The rejection of the claims is upheld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17- 18, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”) and further in view of Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488).
As for claim(s) 1, 13, and 22, a method of assembling a flip chip semiconductor package, comprising:
Placing a semiconductor die (substrate package (15) Teshima) having circuitry electrically coupled to bond pads (bond pads (12) Teshima) having bumps (bonding portion (13) Teshima)
With solder paste (tin-zinc alloy solder [col 10 line 66-68] Teshima) thereon onto bonding features ((12) and (13) Teshima) of a package substrate (package substrate 11 Teshima); and
Arc welding ([col 9 lines 19-22] Teshima) using a biased electrode (electrode (12) Blankenship et al.) having a tip spaced ((58) tip, inherent for arc welding, Fig. 4, Blankenship et al.) apart from the solder paste (tin-zinc alloy solder [col 10 line 66-68] Teshima) wherein
Electrical current generated by the arc welding (obvious) melts the solder paste (tin-zinc alloy solder ([col 10 line 66-68] Teshima) to provide a solder connection (bonding portion/solder bump (13), [col 11, lines 19-21] Teshima).
Wherein an arc welding apparatus (Fig. 17, Kato et al.) used includes
a plurality of biased electrodes (electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18, Blankenship), and wherein a first biased electrode is configured to form a first solder connection in a first plane (z-direction, Fig. 2 Blankenship) and a second biased electrode is configured to form a second solder connection in a second plane (z-direction, Fig. 2 Blankenship), different from the first plane (Fig. 2 Blankenship)
(Regarding claim(s) 1, 13 and 22, the use of arc welding in semiconductors is known in the art. Teshima discloses component (15) as an arc welded substrate to be flip chip mounted to another device. See [(SOIC) Small Outline Integrated Circuit, col 9, line 60, Teshima]. Specifically, Teshima teaches placing a semiconductor die having circuitry electrically coupled to bond pads having bumps with solder paste thereon onto bonding features of a package substrate utilizing arc welding, wherein electrical current generated by arc welding produces heat which melts the solder paste, providing a solder connection.  This process of using heat generated by the electrical current of arc welding is obvious, as this fusion method and resulting bond in the presence of solder, is well known in the art. It is also understood that when bonding materials by arc welding, the tip of the welding apparatus is apart from the workpiece and does not typically touch the solder, as the heat generated from the electrical charge, may be optimized to a temperature sufficient to melt solder paste without direct contact, given the relatively low melting point of solder. Hence, Teshima does not explicitly teach a biased electrode having a tip spaced apart from the solder paste.However, Blankenship et al. teaches a biased electrode having a tip spaced apart from the workpiece as illustrated in Fig. 4. And since it is known in the art to use arc welding for bonding semiconductor components, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the arc welding device of Blankenship et al. with the semiconductor fabrication scope and method of Teshima to fabricate a device that conforms to the design specification disclosed by the Applicant in the claims.)
Also, Teshima teaches the application of arc welding to electrically couple components to a substrate. Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of a substrate holder having the package substrate thereon that is grounded, wherein the package substrate is grounded by the substrate holder.
However, Kato et al. does teach an arc welding apparatus/method utilizing a substrate holder and having the package substrate thereon that is grounded. The use of an arc welding apparatus, employing a tip that never actually touches the solder, would benefit from a feature of the device that would securely hold the workpiece in place, and that would ground the workpiece given the electrical charge emitted from the welding method. The Examiner has already discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 22 above, the combination of the arc welding device of Blankenship et al. with the semiconductor fabrication scope and method of Teshima. It would follow that the implementation of the substrate holder of Kato et al. could be combined with the Teshima and Blankenship inventions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ground the apparatus and the package substrate, so as to both secure and ground the package substrate to protect against shock hazards. See Azzalina, Brandon, “The Importance of Grounding While Welding”)
As for claim(s) 3 and 21, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The method excludes a solder reflow step (obvious).
(Regarding claim(s) 3 and 21, Teshima teaches the methods of claims 1 and 13 for coupling bonding features through the process of arc welding.
Teshima does not explicitly teach the exclusion of a solder reflow step. It is well known in the art that the electrical current generated by the arc welding process both melts and bonds solder paste to provide a solder connection and would obviously, if not inherently exclude a solder reflow step as the arc created by the electric current flowing between the two electrodes, creates such an intense heat that the bonding of components would not need a reflow step. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the solder reflow step would be excluded from the device fabrication process.)
As for claim(s) 5, the method of claim 1, wherein
The arc welding (0023, Blankenship et al.) simultaneously forms a plurality of the solder connections (Abstract, Blankenship).
(Regarding claim(s) 5, Blankenship teaches an arc welding apparatus and method including a plurality of biased electrodes programmed to cooperatively and systemically, execute a number of simultaneous operations in tandem. Specifically in [0023], Blankenship et al. employs a method wherein “ tandem electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 are arranged linearly and spaced apart along a direction designated the x-direction in FIGS. 1 and 2, and move together along the x-direction at a selected travel speed..” such that the electrodes 12, 14, 16, 18 move along the designated x-direction simultaneously, at a common travel speed welding joints of a workpiece, thereby forming a plurality of the solder connections.Teshima teaches the forming of a plurality of solder connections as disclosed in Claim 15 of Teshima. …”electrically conductive bonding member comprises a plurality of bumps or leads provided in a high-density mounting.” The Examiner has shown in the previous rejection of claims 1, 13, and 22 above, that the arc welding apparatus of Blankenship et al. may be used in the method of assembling a flip chip semiconductor package disclosed in Teshima.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the inventions of Teshima and Blankenship et al. to fabricate a device that conforms to the design specification, i.e. an arc welding apparatus and method including a plurality of the biased electrodes, wherein the arc welding device of Blankenship et al. simultaneously forms a plurality of solder connections on the plurality of bumps of Teshima).
As for claims 6 and 14, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The package substrate comprises a lead frame (obvious), and wherein
The bonding features comprise leads (obvious).
(Regarding claim(s) 6 and 14, Teshima teaches a package substrate with bonding features. Teshima does not explicitly teach that the package substrate comprises a lead frame wherein the bonding features comprise leads. However, in col. 9 lines 64-67 and col. 10, lines 1-4, Teshima discloses that the methods of the claim are applicable to the field of mounting substrates. “For example, that field includes bonding of IC package and CPU for use in semiconductor field”. This disclosure would then obviously include the utilization of a package substrate comprising a lead frame, wherein the bonding features comprise leads, since IC packages involve the integration of circuits within lead frames.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the package substrate would comprise a lead frame, wherein the bonding features comprise leads, so as to use an industrially tested and accepted device/process/material.)
As for claim(s) 7 and 15, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The tip is positioned at an angle from 15 degrees to 45 degrees (optimize) relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate.
(Regarding claim(s) 7 and 15, Teshima does not explicitly teach an optimized tip position angle from 15 degrees to 45 degrees relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the angular position of the arc welding tip, so as to ensure the current is delivered to the optimized location for bonding device components. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.
The Applicant has not shown that the specific discovery of a tip position angle from 15 degrees to 45 degrees relative to a normal drawn from a top surface of the package substrate is somehow unique, novel or cutting edge in the fabrication method and use of the disclosed device.
As for claim(s) 9 and 17, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The electrical current is in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA (optimize).
(Regarding claim(s) 9 and 17, Teshima  teaches arc welding, which inherently requires the use of an electrical current. Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of an electrical current  in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an electrical current strong enough to melt the solder, bonding the components, i.e., a current in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.) The Applicant has not shown that the specific discovery of an electrical current in a range from 60 mA to 200 mA is somehow unique, novel or cutting edge in the fabrication method and use of the disclosed device.
As for claims 10 and 18, the method of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The electrical current is applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec (optimize).
(Regarding claim(s) 10 and 18, Teshima  teaches arch welding with inherently requires the use of an electrical current applied to a work piece for an amount of time.
Teshima does not explicitly teach that the electrical current is applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the electrical current long enough to sufficiently melt the solder and bond the components. i.e., for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233.)
The Applicant has not shown that the specific discovery of an electrical current applied for a time between 0.5 msec and 1.3 msec is somehow unique, novel or cutting edge in the fabrication method and use of the disclosed device.
Claim(s) 2, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”) and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claims 1 and 13, and in further view of Ho et al. (US 20200350285).
As for claim(s) 2, 19 and 20, the methods of claims 1 and 13 respectively, wherein
The bumps comprise solder balls (Annotated Fig. 2B, Teshima below) or pillars ([0037] Ho et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
296
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Regarding claim(s) 2, 19 and 20 Teshima teaches the use of solder bumps to bond the substrate to the circuit.
Although the bonding portions of the Teshima Annotated Fig. 2B above do appear to be comprised of solder balls or pillars, Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of solder balls or pillars. Nonetheless, Ho et al. does teach the use of bumps comprising solder balls or pillars ([0037]). Solder balls require a small amount of solder and flux to be placed on the component such that the component can then be connected to the circuit board with a minimum of production heating.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to bond the package components using solder balls or pillars, so as to use an industrially tested and accepted device/process/material.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”), and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Shimizu et al. (US 20190335119).
As for claim 4, the method of claim 1, further comprising
Flux washing (flux washing, [131] Shimizu et al.) after applying the electrical current.
(Regarding claim(s) 4, Teshima  teaches the use of flux.
Teshima does not explicitly teach a flux washing process after applying the electrical current. However, it is known in the art that the arc welding process of Teshima melts solder paste to provide a solder connection. Hence, it would follow that solder may drip or pool on the substrate necessitating the need for cleaning of the substrate to ensure the proper functioning of the device.
Shimizu et al. does teach flux washing in [0131] after previously applying the electrical current  disclosed in [0130].  Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to remove excess flux by using a washer, a dryer, and a flux washing solution after the solder bonding step was completed, such as disclosed in the methods of Shimizu et al., so as to use a functioning, industrially tested and accepted device/process/material.)
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466); Azzalina, Brandon (“The Importance of Grounding While Welding”) and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claims 1 and 13, and in further view of Matsuura et al. (US 20210111136).
As for claims 8 and 16, the method of claim 1, wherein
The bond pads (bond pad 181 Matsuura et al.) are all positioned along a periphery of the semiconductor die (substrate package (15) Teshima).
(Regarding claim(s) 8 and 16, Teshima  teaches a semiconductor die.
Teshima does not explicitly teach that the bond pads are all positioned along a periphery of the semiconductor die. Nonetheless, Matsuura et al. discloses in [0004] “bond pads connected to nodes in the circuitry all arranged along the periphery of the die”. Bonding pads along the periphery of the die would improve bonding efficiency during angle rotation of the device arm and tip, giving better access to tightly spaced bonding components within reach of the arm and electric arc emanating from the welding tip.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to position the bond pads along a periphery of the semiconductor die, so as to fabricate a device that conforms to the design specification.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teshima, Kouichi (US 6280858) in view of Kato; Tetsuaki (US 20060069466) and Blankenship, George et al. (US 20050133488), as applied to claims 1, and in further view of Bayot, Arthur (US 20050133573).
As for claim 12, the method of claim 1, wherein
There is solder flux on the bonding features ([0020] Bayot).
(Regarding claim(s) 12, Teshima teaches the use of solder flux on the bonding features.
Teshima does not explicitly teach the use of solder flux on the bonding features, though the use of flux for semiconducting mounting is disclosed in [col 2, lines 8-24, Teshima].However, Bayot teaches solder flux on the bonding features. It is well known in the art to use flux when soldering as it increases the wetting ability of the solder, causing it to flow more uniformly over surfaces without beading up. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use solder flux on the bonding features of Teshima, as disclosed by Bayot, to prevent oxidation of the materials and allow for a free flow of solder over joints.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US6280858: Claims:
1. A substrate for mounting an electronic part, comprising:
an electrically conductive bonding member provided on a substrate; and
a bonding portion which is formed of a solder alloy on the electrically conductive bonding member, in which the solder alloy comprises a zinc component and a tin component and has a first layer at the interface of the electrically conductive bonding member and the bonding portion, and the content of the zinc component of the first layer is concentrated to approximately 70% by weight or more, wherein the content of an oxygen component of the solder alloy is 100 ppm or less.
2. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first layer has a thickness of approximately 1 μm.
3. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the content of the zinc component of the first layer is 95% by weight or more.
4. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the solder alloy has a second layer being adjacent to the first layer, and the content of the zinc component of the second layer is 5.8 to 11.7% by weight.
5. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein said zinc component is present from about 3% to about 12% of the solder composition.
6. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the content of the zinc layer of the first layer is 88% by weight or more.
7. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive bonding member has a surface comprising a metal selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, nickel, gold, palladium, platinum and iridium.
8. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive bonding member comprises a plurality of bumps or leads provided in a high density mounting with an interval of 1 mm or less.
9. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the bonding portion bonds to the electrically conductive bonding member at a bonding strength of 3.5 kgf/mm2 or more.
10. The substrate according to claim 1, wherein the bonding portion bonds to the electrically conductive bonding member at a bonding strength of 5 kgf/mm2 or more.
11. A substrate on which an electronic part is mounted, comprising:
an electrically conductive bonding member provided on a substrate; and
a bonding portion connecting the electronic part with the electrically conductive bonding member of the substrate, the bonding portion being formed of a solder alloy on the electrically conductive bonding member, in which the solder alloy comprises a zinc component and a tin component and has a first layer at the interface of the electrically conductive bonding member and the bonding portion, and the content of the zinc component of the first layer is concentrated to approximately 70% by weight or more, wherein the content of an oxygen component of the solder alloy is 100 ppm or less.
12. The substrate according to claim 11, wherein the solder alloy further has a surface layer in which the zinc component is concentrated so that the content of the tin component is at most approximately 1% by weight.
13. The substrate according to claim 11, wherein the surface layer has a thickness of approximately 30 to 120 Å.
14. The substrate according to claim 11, wherein the electrically conductive bonding member has a surface comprising a metal selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, nickel, gold, palladium, platinum and iridium.
15. The substrate according to claim 11, wherein the electrically conductive bonding member comprises a plurality of bumps or leads provided in a high density mounting with an interval of 1 mm or less.
16. The substrate according to claim 11, wherein the bonding portion bonds to the electrically conductive bonding member at a bonding strength of 3.5 kgf/mm2 or more.
17. The substrate according to claim 11, wherein said zinc component is present from about 3% to about 12% of the solder composition.
18. The substrate according to claim 11, wherein the content of the zinc layer of the first layer is 88% by weight or more.
19. A substrate for mounting an electronic part, comprising:
an electrically conductive bonding member provided on a substrate; and
a bonding portion which is formed of a metallic composition on the electrically conductive bonding member, in which the metallic composition comprises a zinc component and a tin component and includes a surface layer in which the zinc component is concentrated so that the content of the tin component is at most approximately 1% by weight, wherein the content of an oxygen component of the solder alloy is 100 ppm or less.
20. The substrate according to claim 19, wherein the surface layer has a thickness of approximately 30 to 120 Å.
21. The substrate according to claim 19, wherein the content of the zinc component of the metallic composition is 0.5% by weight or more.
22. A substrate on which an electronic part is mounted, comprising:
an electrically conductive bonding member provided on a substrate; and
a bonding portion connecting the electronic part with the electrically conductive bonding member of the substrate, the bonding portion being formed of a metallic composition on the electrically conductive bonding member, in which the metallic composition comprises a zinc component and a tin component and includes a surface layer in which the zinc component is concentrated so that the content of the tin component is at most approximately 1% by weight, wherein the content of an oxygen component of the solder alloy is 100 ppm or less.
Ref US20060069466: Claims:
1. A method for controlling a trajectory of a robot when a plurality of robots are operated by cooperative control, the plurality of robots including a leading robot having a work tool and at least one tracking robot holding a workpiece to be processed by the work tool, the method comprising: 
controlling the position and the orientation of the tracking robot corresponding to the change of the position and the orientation of the leading robot such that the position and the orientation of a first tool coordinate system set on the leading robot moves along a desired trajectory on a second tool coordinate system set on the tracking robot.
2. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising: 
preparing a plurality of teaching points by teaching an operating position of each of the leading robot and the tracking robot;  calculating the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the first tool coordinate system of the leading robot by interpolating the position and the orientation of the first coordinate system at the teaching points of the leading robot at every interpolative time during a playback operation;  determining the relative position and the relative orientation of the first tool coordinate system of the leading robot to the second tool coordinate system of the tracking robot at every interpolative time by interpolating the relative position and the relative orientation of the first tool coordinate system at the teaching point;  calculating the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the second tool coordinate system of the tracking robot based on the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the first tool coordinate system of the leading robot and the relative position and the relative orientation of the first tool coordinate system of the leading robot at every interpolative time; and  controlling each joint of the leading robot and the tracking robot such that the positions and the orientations of the first and second coordinate systems are maintained.
3. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising controlling the position and the orientation of the tracking robot such that the relative position and the relative orientation of the tracking robot, to the leading robot, are maintained when the position and the orientation of the leading robot is changed by manual feeding.
4. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising manually feeding the tracking robot such that the second tool coordinate system is desirably translated and rotated on the first tool coordinate system.
5. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising cooperatively operating a plurality of tracking robots relative to the motion of one leading robot.
6. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising cooperatively controlling all of the leading robot and the tracking robot by using one control device.
7. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising cooperatively controlling the leading robot and the tracking robot by using a plurality of control devices and by communicating between each of the control devices.
8. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising: 
filtering a time-series of data representing the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the first tool cooperative system of the leading robot;  calculating the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the second tool coordinate system of the tracking robot based on the time-series of data before the filtering and the relative position and the relative orientation of the first coordinate system at every interpolative time; and  filtering a time-series of data representing the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the second tool coordinate system of the tracking robot after calculating the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the second tool coordinate system.
9. The method as set forth in claim 1, comprising: 
filtering a time-series of data representing the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the first tool cooperative system of the leading robot;  filtering a time-series of data representing the relative position and the relative orientation of the first tool coordinate system of the leading robot at every interpolative time; and  calculating the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation of the second tool coordinate system of the tracking robot based on the interpolative position and the interpolative orientation and the relative position and the relative orientation of the first tool coordinate system of the leading robot after the filtering.
Ref US20050133488: Claims:
1. A method for monitoring a tandem welding process employing a plurality of tandem electrodes, the method comprising: 
measuring a welding parameter for each tandem electrode;  shifting the measured welding parameters to a reference; and  combining the measured and shifted welding parameters of the tandem electrodes at the reference.
2. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the shifting comprises: 
shifting a position coordinate of the measured welding parameter of each tandem electrode by a distance of the electrode from a reference position.
3. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the shifting comprises: 
shifting a position coordinate of the measured welding parameter of each tandem electrode by a distance of the electrode from a reference electrode.
4. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the shifting comprises: 
shifting a time coordinate of the measured welding parameter of each tandem electrode by a travel time during which the electrode travels to the reference position.
5. The method as set forth in claim 4, wherein the shifting of the time coordinate by a travel time comprises: 
determining the travel time based on a travel speed of the plurality of tandem electrodes and a position of the electrode relative to a lead electrode of the plurality of tandem electrodes, the lead electrode position defining the reference position.
6. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the measuring of a welding parameter for each tandem electrode comprises: 
computing at least one of a deposition rate welding parameter and a weld heat input welding parameter.
7. The method as set forth in claim 6, wherein the combining of the measured and shifted welding parameters comprises: 
summing the computed and shifted deposition rates of the tandem electrodes to produce a tandem electrodes deposition rate at the reference; and  summing the computed and shifted weld heat inputs of the tandem electrodes to produce a tandem electrodes weld heat input at the reference.
8. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the measuring of a welding parameter for each tandem electrode comprises: 
measuring a welding parameter as a function of time for each electrode.
9. The method as set forth in claim 8, wherein the measuring of a welding parameter as a function of time comprises: 
measuring the welding parameter at discrete times.
10. The method as set forth in claim 8, wherein the shifting comprises: 
transforming the welding parameter as a function of time to a welding parameter as a function of position based on a position of a lead electrode of the plurality of tandem electrodes, a distance of the electrode from the lead electrode, and a travel speed of the plurality of tandem electrodes.
11. The method as set forth in claim 10, wherein the combining of the measured and shifted welding parameters comprises: 
summing the welding parameters as a function of position to compute a welding parameter as a function of position for the plurality of tandem electrodes.
12. The method as set forth in claim 10, wherein the measuring of a welding parameter as a function of time for each electrode comprises: 
measuring at least one of a deposition rate and a heat input.
13. A tandem welding system comprising: 
a plurality of spaced apart electrodes arranged to travel at a common travel speed, the plurality of spaced apart electrodes cooperatively performing a weld;  a data storage medium storing measured data for each electrode during the performing of the weld; and  a processor performing a process comprising: 
for each electrode, recalling measured data corresponding to the electrode passing a reference position, and 
combining the recalled measured data of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes to compute a weld parameter of the tandem welding system at the reference position.
14. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 13, wherein the electrodes are spaced apart linearly along a direction of travel, and the recalling of measured data corresponding to the electrode passing a reference position comprises: 
dividing a distance of the electrode from a reference electrode of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes by the common travel speed to determine a time shift between measured data of the reference electrode and measured data of the electrode.
15. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 14, wherein the recalling of measured data corresponding to the electrode passing a reference position further comprises: 
determining a time at which the reference electrode passed the reference position by dividing a distance between the reference position and an initial position of the reference electrode by the common travel speed.
16. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 14, wherein the recalling of measured data corresponding to the electrode passing a reference position further comprises: 
determining a time at which the reference electrode passed the reference position based on a travel position of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes arranged to travel at a common travel speed.
17. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 13, further comprising: 
one or more voltage measuring devices measuring a voltage as a function of time associated with each of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes; and  one or more current measuring devices measuring a current as a function of time associated with each of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes;  wherein the measured data stored in the data storage medium for each electrode includes at least the measured voltage and the measured current.
18. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 17, wherein the measured data further includes a weld heat input for each electrode computed from the measured voltage and current, the combining of the recalled measured data of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes to compute a weld parameter of the tandem welding system at the reference position comprising: 
summing the recalled weld heat input of each electrode to compute a tandem weld heat input parameter of the tandem welding system at the reference position.
19. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 17, wherein the measured data further includes at least a weld heat input for each electrode, the weld heat input being computed based on at least the measured voltage and current.
20. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 17, wherein the combining of the recalled measured data of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes to compute a weld parameter of the tandem welding system at the reference position comprises: 
computing a weld heat input for each electrode from at least the recalled measured voltage and current for the electrode; and  summing the weld heat input of the electrodes to compute a tandem weld heat input of the tandem welding system at the reference position.
21. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 13, further comprising: 
one or more wire feed speed controllers determining a wire feed speed associated with each of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes;  wherein the measured data stored in the data storage medium for each electrode includes at least the determined wire feed speed.
22. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the measured data further includes a deposition rate for each electrode computed from at least the measured wire feed speed of the electrode, and the combining of the recalled measured data of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes to compute a weld parameter of the tandem welding system at the reference position comprises: 
summing the recalled deposition rate of each electrode to compute a tandem deposition rate parameter of the tandem welding system at the reference position.
23. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the measured data further includes at least a deposition rate as a function of time for each electrode, the deposition rate being computed based on at least the measured wire feed speed.
24. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 21, wherein the combining of the recalled measured data of the plurality of spaced apart electrodes to compute a weld parameter of the tandem welding system at the reference position comprises: 
computing a deposition rate for each electrode from the measured wire feed speed of the electrode; and  summing the deposition rates of the electrodes to compute a tandem deposition rate of the tandem welding system at the reference position.
25. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 13, wherein the processor performs the process for a plurality of different reference positions to produce the weld parameter of the tandem welding system as a function of position, and the tandem welding system further comprises: 
a graphical user display providing a first window showing at least the weld parameter of the tandem welding system as a function of position.
26. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 25, wherein the graphical user display provides a second window showing at least the measured data for each electrode as a function of position.
27. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 26, wherein the graphical user display further providing a selector operable by an associated user to select between displaying the first and second windows.
28. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 26, wherein the graphical user display provides the first and second windows displayed simultaneously.
29. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 25, wherein the first window includes at least one user-manipulated cursor indicating the weld parameter at a position of the cursor.
30. The tandem welding system as set forth in claim 25, wherein the first window further includes at least two user-manipulated cursors and indica
[Truncated to input limit]