COBRA 3.0 and TX SMT Screen Print Solution, beyond Nano. InterLatin Innovation

2. SMT Assemblies
Why Solder Paste Inspection?
The majority of SMT defects occurs during the solder paste printing process.
According to data from SMTA (The Surface Mount Technology Association),
74% of defects in PCB manufacturing process are related to solder paste.
Assembly Process Defect Chart

3. Why??
Is Printing so Important
1. Production must be more
FLEXIBLE.
2. Mixed technologies, on the same
board.
3. Limited space, Assembly density
4. Budget reductions
5. Quality demand
6. No rework permitted

4. Processes continue to be challenged
If that weren't
enough…….
Miniaturization

5. Stainless Steel
FG/PHD
Nickel
1. Láser Cut
2. Local support
3. Rapid Deliveries
1. Laser Cut
2. Local support
3. Rapid Deliveries
4. Improved “Paste
Release”*
Stencil Options
Both have Laser Cuts but “Ni” is famed for the improved
“Paste Release” element.

6. Electroformed, EF, EFAB
1. Production process
2. Superior “Paste
Release”* properties
3. Delivery issues
4. Product Revision
5. NO re-work
6. Mechanical seal
Stencil Options
The Mechanical seal is different EF vs SS/Ni Laser cut
EFAB
Laser
Cut

8. The trends indicate that the “Normal” is:
EF produces more “Bridging”
“SS/Ni” produce more insufficiencies

9. Concept of the “NANO” Stencil
1.Laser cut, SS
2.Additional Processing “NANO”
3.Improved Paste deposit definition.
4.Reduction in consumables
5.Improved Aspect Ratio performance
NOTE: We went back to “Laser Cuts”

10. 2 concepts exist
“Onsite” Towellette
1) Vendor application
2) No Rework
3) Limited durability
4) Delivery constraints
5) Extra sensative to Customer
process
6) Stencil wash methods limit
“NANO” effectivity.
7) Maintenance Costs
1) Applied locally by
customer
1) Process is subjective
to customer
application process.
2) “Nano” Maintenance
3) Additional expenses
4) Lifecycle…Subjective
5) Another factor in
Production fails
Topical “Coating”
The real world of Manufacturing
Limits the
Enhancements /Benefits
Of the “Nano “Processed Stencils
THE CONCEPT.. “Nano Stencil” Improves
the “Paste Release” ……The Paste release is
critical to support the challenges which
compromises the ASPECT RATIO Calcs for
our Mfg world/marketplace. …….But….

11. 2 concepts exist
“Onsite” Towellette
1) Vendor application
2) No Rework
3) Limited durability
4) Delivery constraints
5) Extra sensative to Customer
process
6) Stencil wash methods limit
“NANO” effectivity.
7) Maintenance Costs
1) Applied locally by
customer
1) Process is subjective
to customer
application process.
2) “Nano” Maintenance
3) Additional expenses
4) Lifecycle…Subjective
5) Another factor in
Production fails
Topical “Coating”
The real world of Manufacturing
Limits the
Enhancements /Benefits
Of the “Nano “Processed Stencils

12. 2 concepts exist
“Onsite” Towellette
1) Vendor application
2) No Rework
3) Limited durability
4) Delivery constraints
5) Extra sensative to Customer
process
6) Stencil wash methods limit
“NANO” effectivity.
7) Maintenance Costs
1) Applied locally by
customer
1) Process is subjective
to customer
application process.
2) “Nano” Maintenance
3) Additional expenses
4) Lifecycle…Subjective
5) Another factor in
Production fails
Topical “Coating”

13. 2013 Q1
Proprietary documents for
Mexico/EU Generated
2013 Q1
Proprietary documents in USA
Generated
2010 Q4
ProJect formalized
2012 Q1
Cobra Launched
2012 Q2
Sales Began
2012 Q3
Revised New process to improve Adherance
2013 Q1
Cobra “TX” Created
Lower Cost COBRA
2013 Q2
The 2 New Cobra’s were
introduced to Market
2011 Q2
Trademark established
2013 Q1
InterLatin Received recognition
CONACYT- Stimulation for Innovation
Since Q32013 Sales Started

14. • ALL TopLINE Nanos (Coatings and Towllette) vs “COBRA 3.0 & TX”
– Sensative to stencil wash
– Wearing of the “COATING”
– Aplication type “Coating”
– On time Delivery
– Componentes
– “Nano” waste management
– Outperforms any Nano, Eform, Ni stencil
– ECO-Friendly
Product Comparison
Asked customers, “What issues do you encounter with current SMT print
solutions”

15. • ALL TopLINE Nanos vs “COBRA 3.0 y TX”
– Sensative to stencil wash
– Wearing of the “COATING”
– Aplication type “Coating”
– On time Delivery
– Componentes
– “Nano” waste management
– Outperforms any Nano, Eform, Ni stencil
– ECO-Friendly
Product Comparison
When we compared the 3.0 and TX to customer
needs….

16. • ALL TopLINE Nanos, “Cobra HD” vs “COBRA 3.0 y TX”
– Sensative to stencil wash
– Wearing of the “COATING”
– Aplication type “Coating”
– On time Delivery
– Componentes
– “Nano” waste management
– Outperforms any Nano, Eform, Ni stencil
– ECO-Friendly
– Cobra…Lasts the Life of the Stencil !!!!
Product Comparison

17. REX Customer
“COBRA, BGA “.35”, AR .49, Paste
type 3 mesh,
Over 17000 assemblies, zero fail.
Mechanical or Electrical.”

18. GDL Site
 Increased ICT Yield 60% to 75%. Excellent paste release
GDL Site
 We compared COBRA with E-Fab stencil. COBRA had a
better release of solder paste,
we reduced problems in our printing process
SPC data reflects the same stencil print, volume,
without and with COBRA process

19. Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirments
They had 3D SPI inline
Volume Measurements
CpK >/= 1.6
Std Dev </= 8
16 mil pitch QFP
ANY SPC sine wave is representative only
The customer was using an Efab Stencil:
(Customer Actual results) 65% of designed aperture deposition.
Efab 100% of established SPI volume
Cpk: 1.56
Std Dev= 11

20. Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirments
They had 3D SPI inline
Volume Measurements
CpK >/= 1.6
Std Dev </= 8
16 mil pitch QFP
EFab
This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality
ANY SPC sine wave is representative only
The common concern…..

21. EFab
COBRA 3.0
This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality
ANY SPC sine wave is representative only
InterLatin produced a COBRA 3.0
Simply taking the Paste from the Efab Stencil and loading it onto the COBRA
Restarted the production process….The results….

22. Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirments
They had 3D SPI inline
Volume Measurements
CpK >/= 1.6
Std Dev </= 8
16 mil pitch QFP
EFab
COBRA 3.0
This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality
The SPC sine wave is representative only
Final Comparison: (Customer Actual results) 65% of designed aperture
deposition.
Efab 100% of established SPI volume
Cpk: 1.56
Std Dev= 11
COBRA 115% Volume compared to Efab
CpK: 2
Std Dev= 6
Note: NOT even the underscreen cleaners elements interfered with the COBRA
print quality
10 months LATER

23. Automotive Customer Requirement: Use Eform Std as minimum requirments
They had 3D SPI inline
Volume Measurements
CpK >/= 1.6
Std Dev </= 8
16 mil pitch QFP
EFab
COBRA 3.0
This denotes an effect caused by the USC while using EF but did not affect COBRA print quality
The SPC sine wave is representative only
Final results: (Customer Actual results) 65% of designed apeture deposition.
Efab 100% of established SPI volume
Cpk: 1.56
Std Dev= 11
COBRA 115% Volume compared to Efab
CpK: 2
Std Dev= 6
Note: NOT even the underscreen cleaners elements interfered with the COBRA
print quality
I only changed the Stencil

25. What we Did, June 2014
• Created a test vehicle, representing current assembly
challenges, for our customers
• Setup an SMT printer, Fully automated
• Programmed Solder Paste Inspection system, fully
automated
• Made one common stencil design, IAW industry
standards…..NO special designs
• 5 mils material used
• ONLY changed the Stencil

26. PHD Results SQFP 0.3mm Pitch
SQFP 12mil pitch
EFab SQFP 0.3mm Pitch

27. PHD COBRA 3.0 71 SQFP 0.3mm
SQFP 12mil pitch

28. PHD uBGA 0.4mm
uBGA 16mil pitch
EFAB uBGA 0.4mm

29. uBGA 16mil pitch
PHD COBRA 3.0 71 uBGA 0.4mm.jpg

30. PHD COBRA TX 71 CAP 0402
CAP 0402
PHD CAP 0402
EFAB CAP 0402

31. PHD COBRA 3.0 71 CAP 0402
CAP 0402

32. CAP 0201
EFab CAP 0201
PHD COBRA 3.0 71 CAP 0201
PHD COBRA TX 71 CAP 0201

33. Gracias
Merci
Obrigado
Danke