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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant argues that the combination of Andry and Dunn invokes improper hindsight reasoning. Specifically, Andry is related to ablation separation, while Dunn is related to ablation imaging. The Examiner’s stated reason for combination is that a flashlamp requires fewer corrective actions, and Applicant points out that the cited reference states “requires less corrective imaging”, and thus this teaching would only apply to ablation imaging and not ablation in general, and such combination is only possible with hindsight reasoning.
The Examiner disagrees with this argument as the “corrective imaging” is a method step of ablating damaged material not yet fully ablated after an initial radiation of either a laser or flashlamp, and the conceptual method step has broader application to ablation in general. In the context of Dunn, this step is related to the ablative imaging, as that is the ablation application of Dunn, however in the context of Andry, this step would be secondary applications of either a laser or flashlamp to ensure full separation, as separation is the application of ablation by Andry. The productivity of the flashlamp in a combined reference of Andry and Dunn is the productivity related to separation, there was no integration of ablation imaging from the reference of Dunn into the primary reference of Andry. This increased productivity is relevant to Andry as Audry states that a laser may need to go over transparent carrier several times (col. 9 lines 21-26), and less subsequent applications of radiation is a strong motivation to use a flashlamp over a laser in the method of Andry. For these reasons this argument is unpersuasive, and the rejections of the previous Office Action are maintained.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 37 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37 uses the wording “the first side of the carrier” in line 2. While there is no ambiguity that this is referring to the “one side” of the carrier as mentioned in claim 9 line 4, the claim terms should be consistent and thus should be worded as “the one side of the carrier”.
Claim 40 uses the wording “the first side of the carrier” in line 2. While there is no ambiguity that this is referring to the “one side” of the carrier as mentioned in claim 19 line 4, the claim terms should be consistent and thus should be worded as “the one side of the carrier”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 9, 29-30, and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry et al. (US 9,029,238; previously presented; hereafter known as Andry) in view of Dunn et al. (US 5,757,016; previously presented; hereafter known as Dunn).
Regarding claim 9, Andry teaches a method of attaching a wafer (semiconductor wafer or device wafer- 21) to one side of a transparent carrier (transparent handler or handler- 22) using a provided light absorbing layer (release layer- 24; noted as strongly absorbent of ultraviolet light), processing said wafer, and detaching the wafer from the transparent carrier using light to loosen the wafer (col. 2 lines 44-54). The processing step can include wafer thinning (col. 6 lines 34-38). The release layer is noted as an adhesive and is applied as a liquid with the light absorbing material already included (col. 8 lines 5-16). Andry teaches that the light absorbing layer strongly absorbs the light radiated from their light source (in their case a laser; Claim 2) which is consistent with Applicant’s definition of being “Broadband” as found in pg. 5 lines 29-31 in their Specification filed 05/11/2022, and therefore Andry’s light absorbing adhesive is a broadband light absorbing adhesive.
Andry does not teach the use of a flashlamp and associated limitations in their ablative process. In a related art, Dunn teaches that in ablative processes it is preferable to use a flashlamp over a laser for ablation as flashlamp ablation requires fewer corrective actions, and therefore better productivity (col. 7 lines 13-24). Dunn specifies that ablation generates heat in the target material (col. 5 lines 12-17). The flashlamp operates using a pulse in the range of microseconds (col. 5 lines 32-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to substitute the laser of Andry with the flashlamp of Dunn for the advantage of fewer corrective actions and better productivity.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Andry doesn’t list specific light-absorbing materials. However, Dunn suggests that both dyes and pigment material are effective light-absorbing materials (absorption enhancing agents- col. 5 lines 56-67). In applying Dunn as in claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to also incorporate the use of either the dye or pigment material as suggested by Dunn as the light-absorbing material of Andry as these are known to be effective light-absorbing materials.
Regarding claim 33, Andry teaches that the carrier can be glass (col. 4 lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 34, as noted in claim 9, Andry’s process involves ablation, which burns away the broadband light-absorbing adhesive (col. 7 lines 29-32). Burning creates smoke, which is a gas, and consequentially Andry’s broadband light-absorbing adhesive includes a gas generating material.
Regarding claim 35, in applying Dunn as in claim 9, Dunn teaches that in ablation, the energy generated from the flashlamp should be fully concentrated in the target layer, which in context of Andry is the broadband light-absorbing adhesive layer (col. 5 lines 23-37). This establishes an absorption rate near 100%, which is greater than 80% as claimed by Applicant. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 36, while Andry generally teaches of an intermediate adhesive layer (adhesive layer- 23) between their release layer and wafer as seen in Figure 2, Andry implicitly acknowledges a configuration wherein their release layer is a singular layer between the transparent carrier and wafer through the inclusion of the word “may” in the following teaching- “The release layer 24 may itself comprise an adhesive, but for at least for reasons discussed below, the release layer 24 may be an entirely distinct layer from the adhesive layer 23” (col. 8 lines 5-8). In this case, the broadband light-absorbing adhesive would simultaneously be contacting and attached to both the wafer and transparent carrier.
In the case that Applicant disagrees with this suggestion, alternatively if the broadband light-absorbing adhesive of Andry is reinterpreted as a combination of both the release layer and adhesive layer, then the broadband light-absorbing adhesive would be contacting the wafer while attached to the transparent carrier.
Regarding claim 37, in either of the interpretations of the broadband light-absorbing adhesive noted in claim 36, the broadband light-absorbing adhesive is the only layer between the transparent carrier and wafer, and thus contacts the one side of the carrier when the wafer is attached to the transparent carrier.
Regarding claim 38, Andry teaches that heat and pressure can be applied to adhere the wafer to the broadband light-absorbing adhesive (col. 6 lines 26-33). This bonding step includes both the release layer-24 and adhesive layer-23, so both interpretations of the broadband light-absorbing adhesive used in rejection of claim 36 are relevant to this teaching.
5. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry and Dunn as applied to claim 30 above, and in further view of Lin et al. (US 2019/0330504; previously presented; hereafter known as Lin).
Regarding claim 31, in applying Dunn as in claim 30, Dunn does not specify the usable pigment materials. In a related art, Lin suggests that carbon black is a usable pigmented material ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use carbon black as a specific pigment for Dunn as it is known to be an effective pigment.
6. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry and Dunn as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Azo Materials (NPL dated June 15th, 2009; previously presented).
Regarding claim 32, Andry does not teach the use of quartz for their transparent carrier. In a related art, Azo Materials suggests quartz for the advantages of high thermal shock resistance, high transmission of various light sources, good chemical resistance, and excellent electrical insulation (Advantages of Fused Silica/Quartz Glass Section- pg. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use a quartz carrier in the method of Andry for the advantages of high thermal shock resistance, high transmission of various light sources, good chemical resistance, and excellent electrical insulation.
7. Claims 19, 21-22, 25-27, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry in view of Dunn and Pritchett et al. (US 2002/015292; previously presented; hereafter known as Pritchett).
Regarding claim 19, Andry teaches a method of attaching a device (device wafer- 21) to one side of a transparent carrier (transparent handler or handler- 22) using a light absorbing layer (release layer- 24; noted as strongly absorbent of ultraviolet light), processing said device, and detaching the device from the transparent carrier using light to loosen the device (col. 2 lines 44-54). The processing step includes steps that build electronic components (col. 1 lines 29-35). The release layer is noted as an adhesive and is applied as a liquid with the light absorbing material already mixed in (col. 8 lines 5-16). Andry teaches that the light absorbing layer strongly absorbs the light radiated from their light source (in their case a laser; Claim 2) which is consistent with Applicant’s definition of being “Broadband” as found in pg. 5 lines 29-31 in their Specification filed 05/11/2022, and therefore Andry’s light absorbing adhesive is a broadband light absorbing adhesive.
Andry does not teach the use of a flashlamp and associated limitations in their ablative process. In a related art, Dunn teaches that in ablative processes it is preferable to use a flashlamp over a laser for ablation as flashlamp ablation requires fewer corrective actions, and therefore better productivity (col. 7 lines 13-24). Dunn specifies that ablation generates heat in the target material (col. 5 lines 12-17). The flashlamp operates using a pulse in the range of microseconds (col. 5 lines 32-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to substitute the laser of Andry with the flashlamp of Dunn for the advantage of fewer corrective actions and better productivity.
Andry does not teach that the device comprises a polymeric film, but does mention the device can be attached to an “other substrate” (col. 3 line 65- col. 4 line 1). In a related art, Pritchett teaches a generic commercially produced IC including a package produced by Texas Instruments (Fig. 1) is a generic chip-scale device that includes a polymer film (104) on which the IC is built ([0027]-[0028]). Such a device has an advantage over traditional silicon devices as being low cost ([0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that the wafer of Andry can be substituted with the polymeric film of Pritchett for the advantage of lowering costs.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Andry doesn’t list specific light-absorbing materials. However, Dunn suggests that both dyes and pigment material are effective light-absorbing materials (absorption enhancing agents- col. 5 lines 56-67). In applying Dunn as in claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to also incorporate the use of either the dye or pigment material as suggested by Dunn as the light-absorbing material of Andry as these are known to be effective light-absorbing materials.
Regarding claim 25, Andry teaches that the carrier can be glass (col. 4 lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 26, as noted in claim 19, Andry’s process involves ablation, which burns away the broadband light-absorbing adhesive (col. 7 lines 29-32). Burning creates smoke, which is a gas, and consequentially Andry’s broadband light-absorbing adhesive includes a gas generating material.
Regarding claim 27, in applying Dunn as in claim 19, Dunn teaches that in ablation, the energy generated from the flashlamp should be fully concentrated in the target layer, which in context of Andry is the broadband light-absorbing adhesive layer (col. 5 lines 23-37). This establishes an absorption rate near 100%, which is greater than 80% as claimed by Applicant. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 39, while Andry generally teaches of an intermediate adhesive layer (adhesive layer- 23) between their release layer and device as seen in Figure 2, Andry implicitly acknowledges a configuration wherein their release layer is a singular layer between the transparent carrier and device through the inclusion of the word “may” in the following teaching- “The release layer 24 may itself comprise an adhesive, but for at least for reasons discussed below, the release layer 24 may be an entirely distinct layer from the adhesive layer 23” (col. 8 lines 5-8). In this case, in context, the broadband light-absorbing adhesive would simultaneously be contacting and attached to both the polymeric film and transparent carrier.
In the case that Applicant disagrees with this suggestion, alternatively if the broadband light-absorbing adhesive of Andry is reinterpreted as a combination of both the release layer and adhesive layer, then the broadband light-absorbing adhesive would be contacting the polymeric film while attached to the transparent carrier.
Regarding claim 40, in either of the interpretations of the broadband light-absorbing adhesive noted in claim 39, the broadband light-absorbing adhesive is the only layer between the transparent carrier and the polymeric film, and thus contacts the one side of the carrier when the polymeric film is attached to the transparent carrier.
Regarding claim 40, Andry teaches that heat and pressure can be applied to adhere the device (or in context of the combined references the polymeric film) to the broadband light-absorbing adhesive (col. 6 lines 26-33). This bonding step includes both the release layer-24 and adhesive layer-23, so both interpretations of the broadband light-absorbing adhesive used in rejection of claim 39 are relevant to this teaching.
8. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry, Dunn, and Pritchett as applied to claim 22 above, and in further view of Lin.
Regarding claim 23, in applying Dunn as in claim 22, Dunn does not specify the usable pigment materials. In a related art, Lin suggests that carbon black is a usable pigmented material ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use carbon black as a specific pigment for Dunn as it is known to be an effective pigment.
9. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry, Dunn, and Pritchett as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Azo Materials.
Regarding claim 24, Andry does not teach the use of quartz for their transparent carrier. In a related art, Azo Materials suggests quartz for the advantages of high thermal shock resistance, high transmission of various light sources, good chemical resistance, and excellent electrical insulation (Advantages of Fused Silica/Quartz Glass Section- pg. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use a quartz carrier in the method of Andry for the advantages of high thermal shock resistance, high transmission of various light sources, good chemical resistance, and excellent electrical insulation.
Conclusion
10. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights