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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after January 16, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 21-24 remain pending in the application. Claims 21-24 are newly added. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The Amendments to the claims overcome the previously set forth 102 rejections in view of Shanghai Dianji University (SDU): The examiner agrees that the SDU reference does not teach the “integrated device die” as required by the amended claims. As a Result, new grounds of rejection are required and provided in view of Uzoh.
The method taught by SDU is not an appropriate reference as the method “is used for a substantially different system than is taught by the present application: This argument is not found to be persuasive as the prior art of SDU, regardless of the scale or specific proposed application, falls within the range of analogous are as it clearly addresses the process of direct bonding by welding as currently claims as well as the cleaning aspects required by the claims in order to prevent contamination of the welded items. As set forth in the previous section, the examiner concedes that SDU does not teach the element (as previously claimed) is an “integrated device die.” As a result, a revised rejection is provided of view of Uzoh which teaches the amended limitations of Claim 1.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of SDU with the Chylack Reference on the basis that “the features at issue are on a different scale and using different techniques”: This argument is not found to be persuasive. However, the argument is considered moot in view of current rejection of Claim 16 in view of Uzoh and Chylack. No other claims are rejected in view of Chylack. It should be noted, however, that the claims, as written do not limit the invention in terms of the scale or particular application beyond the method of direct bonding which is taught by both references (SDU and Chylack respectively).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9. 21, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uzoh (US 2020/0365575 A1):
Regarding Claim 1: Uzoh teaches a method of direct bonding (“method [for]..directly bonding” [0023]) , comprising: holding an integrated device die (die such as an “integrated circuit (IC) chip die” [0027]) with a support in a bonding tool (die is “selected [and carried through the system] by pick and place tool (generally comprising a pick tool and a bonding or placement tool” [0077]); cleaning the(“substrate” [0029] ) using a laser cleaning assembly (the die may be carried through a “laser explosion” cleaning station [0077] “prior to bonding” [0078] with the substrate); and directly bonding (“directly bonding” [0023]) the element (“substrate” [0029]) to the(“die” [0027]), without an intervening adhesive (“without adhesive” Abstract), using the bonding tool, while holding the integrated device die (die is “selected [and carried throughout operation…by bonding or placement tool” [0077])and after cleaning the integrated device die and/or the element (the die may be carried through a “laser explosion” cleaning station [0077] “prior to bonding” [0078] with the substrate)
Regarding Claim 4: Uzoh further teaches that the method comprises cleaning the support in the bonding tool (“the surface of the pick and place tool can be cleaned to removed potential sources of die surface contaminants” [0103]) using the laser cleaning assembly (“laser explosion” cleaning station [0077])
Regarding Claim 9: Uzoh further teaches that the method of direct bonding (“method [for]..directly bonding” [0023]) wherein cleaning (“cleaning” [0077]) the integrated device die (“Die” [0027]) is by way of direct irradiation (cleaning of each element may comprise processing through a “laser explosion” cleaning station [0077] wherein the processing surfaces are directly irradiated)
Regarding Claim 21: Uzoh further teaches a method of hybrid bonding (“hybrid bonding” [0032]) , comprising: holding a first element (die such as an “integrated circuit (IC) chip die” [0027])with a support in a bonding tool (die is “selected [and carried through the system] by pick and place tool (generally comprising a pick tool and a bonding or placement tool” [0077]); cleaning the first element (“ die” [0027]) and/or a second element (“substrate” [0029] Element 104) with a laser cleaning assembly (the die may be carried through a “laser explosion” cleaning station [0077] “prior to bonding” [0078] with the substrate); and directly bonding (“directly bonding” [0023]) the second element (“substrate” [0029] Element 104) to the first element (“die” [0027]) to form a room temperature bond (“at room temperature” [0099]) , without an intervening adhesive (“without adhesive” Abstract), using the bonding tool, while holding the first element and after cleaning the first element and/or the second element (the die may be carried through a “laser explosion” cleaning station by the bonding tool [0077] “prior to bonding” [0078] with the substrate)
Regarding Claim 22: Uzoh further teaches that the second element (“substrate” [0029] Element 104) is hybrid bonded (“hybrid bond[ed]” [0032]) to the first element (“ die” [0027]).
Regarding Claim 23: Uzoh further teaches a method of direct bonding (“method [for]..directly bonding” [0023]), the method comprising: holding a first element (die such as an “integrated circuit (IC) chip die” [0027]) with a support in a bonding tool (die is “selected [and carried through the system] by pick and place tool (generally comprising a pick tool and a bonding or placement tool” [0077]; cleaning the first element and/or a second element with a laser cleaning assembly (the die may be carried through a “laser explosion” cleaning station [0077] “prior to bonding” [0078] with the substrate); and after the cleaning, forming a dielectric-to-dielectric (bond between “dielectric material” [0099] surfaces of the first and second element) direct bond between the first element (“die” [0100]) and the second element (“substrate” [0101]) with the bonding tool (“a bonding or placement tool” [0077])
Regarding Claim 24: Uzoh further teaches a conductor-to-conductor direct bond (the bonds forms “electrically conductive joints” [0099] between the elements) between the first element (“die” [0100]) and the second element (“substrate” [0101]) with the bonding tool (“a bonding or placement tool” [0077])
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.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh (US 2020/0365575 A1) in view of Lee (US 2009/0084399 A1):
Regarding Claim 2: Uzoh does not teach that the element (“substrate” [0029]) is cleaned by the laser cleaning assembly.
However, Lee does teach a cleaning process for an element (“Substrate” Abstract) wherein the element is cleaned by a laser cleaning assembly (“laser -induced plasma shock wave…irradiated on the substrate” Abstract)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the method as taught by Uzoh such that the element is also cleaned by the laser cleaning assembly in order to ensure that “the contaminants on the substrate” are “effectively removed” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15: Uzoh does not teach the method, further comprising removing contaminants by a vacuum evacuator.
However, Lee does teach a method and an apparatus for cleaning a substrate using a laser beam (Abstract) further comprising removing contaminants (“removing contaminants” [0074]) by a vacuum evacuator (“vacuum evacuator” Figure 2 Element 700)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Uzoh with the vacuum evacuator of Lee in order to allow the “contaminants on the substrate may be easily removed” [0074].
Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh (US 2020/0365575 A1) in view of Shanghai Dianji University (CN 111360400A):
PNG
media_image1.png
444
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 SDU
PNG
media_image2.png
374
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 SDU
Regarding Claim 3: Uzoh does not teach that the method further comprising cleaning a robotic end effector configured to deliver the element to the bonding tool using the laser cleaning assembly.
However, Shanghai Dianji University further teaches a method of direct bonding (“welding method” Abstract) further comprising cleaning a robotic end effector (“laser cleaning robot” [0031]) configured to deliver the element to the bonding tool using the laser cleaning assembly (the prior art further teaches that the “laser cleaning robot” [0031] can be used to “adjust the position” of the elements and the robot which indicates the capacity to deliver the second element to the bonding tool)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the robotic end effector of Shanghai Dianji University to the invention of Uzoh in order to “adjust the position” of each of the elements as well as ensure that the laser cleaning and laser welding of the elements are an “automated processes” [0023])
Regarding Claim 5: Uzoh teaches that the cleaning comprises generating a laser beam (“laser explosion” cleaning station [0077])
Uzoh does not teach that the cleaning comprises focusing the laser beam onto a focal point, using at least one lens
However, Shanghai Dianji University does teach the method of direct bonding (“welding method” Abstract), wherein the cleaning (“cleaning” [002]) comprises generating a laser beam (the prior art further teaches that the “cleaning” [002]) is conducted by the generation of a “laser” beam) and focusing the laser beam onto a focal point (Figure 2 shows the method further comprises focusing the laser beam onto a “focal point”), using at least one lens (Figure 2 “Lens”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add focusing lens of Shanghai Dianji University to the invention of Uzoh in order to perform “local, precise and controllable” [0031] cleaning and bonding.
Regarding Claim 7: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University further teaches the method of direct bonding (Uzoh “method [for]...directly bonding” [0023]), wherein the cleaning comprises generating a plasma shock wave (SDU “plasma shock wave” [0031]) around the focal point (SDU Figure 2 “Focal Point”), and the laser beam comprises a component parallel to a surface of the second element to be cleaned (SDU Figure 2 “Parallel element of the laser beam”).
Regarding Claim 10: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University further teaches direct irradiation comprises generating a laser beam normal to a surface to be cleaned (SDU Figure 3 further shows that the “laser beam” is normal to the surfaces of the elements to be cleaned) and wherein cleaning comprises scanning (SDU “scanning” [0032]) the laser beam (SDU “laser cleaning robot” [0031]) across the surface to be cleaned (SDU the surfaces of which are the respective components to be bonded).
Regarding Claim 12: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University further teaches that cleaning the element comprises dry laser cleaning and/or steam laser cleaning and/or laser shock cleaning (SDU teaches that the cleaning step involves “laser…shock” [0031] cleaning which reads on the limitations of the claims).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh (US 2020/0365575 A1) in view of Shanghai Dianji University SDU (CN 111360400A) in further in view of Lee (US 2009/0084399 A1):
Regarding Claim 8: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University as modified by Yoon does not teach the method further comprising receiving a fluid in a chamber of the laser cleaning assembly, wherein the plasma shock wave is generated by focusing the laser beam onto the focal point within the fluid.
However, Lee does teach a method and an apparatus for cleaning a substrate using a laser beam (Abstract) further comprising receiving a fluid (the prior art teaches that the received fluid is a “process gas” [0070]) in a chamber (“gas supply section” [0069] Figure 2 Element 440 connected to the “inner chamber” Figure 1 Element 400 of the laser beam system) of the laser cleaning assembly, wherein the plasma shock wave (“Plasma shock wave” [0065] Figure 1 Element 355) is generated by focusing the laser beam onto the focal point within the fluid (Figure 2 further shows that the plasma shock wave is generated by focusing the laser beam onto the focal point within the fluid) .
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the invention of Uzoh as modified by SDU with the fluid of Lee in order to further reduce “contaminants” (Abstract) on the objects being bonded together
Claims 6, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh (US 2020/0365575 A1) and Shanghai Dianji University/SDU (CN 111360400A) in further view of Yoon (US 2017/0301560 A1):
PNG
media_image3.png
509
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University teaches that the method is performed “automatically” which implies that the method includes a controller or processor which actuates the output power (SDU “power” [002]) of at least one laser (SDU “pulse laser” [002]) and/or controls a pulse period (SDU the prior art indicates that the automatic control of the invention controls the “pulse frequency”[0018] which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the relational inverse of the pulse period and that period is controlled as well as frequency) and/or a pulse energy (SDU the prior art indicates that the automation of the invention controls the “speed” [0018] and the “power” in Watts [002] which combined indicates the control of the pulse energy of the laser beam) of the laser beam (“pulse laser” [002]).
Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University (SDU) does not explicitly teach that the method, further comprises a processor
However, Yoon does explicitly teach a method of laser assisted bonding (Abstract) that comprises a processor (“one or more processor” [0020])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Shanghai Dianji University with the processor of Yoon in order to better “perform [the] function” of laser assisted bonding and allow them to be “executed by a computing device” [0020].
Regarding Claim 13: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University and Yoon teaches that the method further comprises a processor (Yoon “one or more processor” [0020]) which conducts the steps of the activating the laser cleaning assembly (SDU “laser cleaning robot” [0031]) for cleaning integrated device die (Uzoh “die” [0027])) and/or the second element (Uzoh “substrate” [0029]) prior to the bonding (SDU The prior art teaches the first step of the bonding process is “cleaning the [elements] by laser” [002] which occurs prior to the bonding step)
Regarding Claim 14: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University (SDU) and Yoon further teaches that the method comprises by a processor (Yoon “one or more processor” [0020]) detecting completion of laser cleaning of the element (Uzoh “substrate” [0029]); and in response to detection of completion of laser cleaning (Uzoh teaches the die may be carried through a “laser explosion” cleaning station [0077] “prior to bonding” [0078] with the substrate. Additionally, SDU teaches that “Both laser cleaning and laser welding are automatic processes” [0023] and that the laser cleaning step occurs prior to the laser welding step. Given that the order is known and conducted automatically, SDU must have the capacity for detecting completion of laser cleaning of the second element before continuing to the bonding step), automatically delivering the second element to the support of the bonding tool (SDU teaches that “Both laser cleaning and laser welding are automatic processes” [0023] and that the laser cleaning step occurs prior to the laser welding step. As such, the elements must be able to automatically be delivered to the support of the bonding tool (SDU “clamp” of the special laser welding feature” [0034]).
Regarding Claim 17: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University (SDU) and Yoon further teaches that the integrated device die (Yoon Figure 5A Element 10) is a semiconductor element (Yoon “semi-conductor die” Figure [0028]) and the second element is a semiconductor element, an electronic element or an optical element (Yoon “substrate” or element which may comprise another semiconductor die” [0035]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh (US 2020/0365575 A1) in view of Shanghai Dianji University SDU (CN 111360400A) in further in view of Lee (US 2009/0084399 A1):
Regarding Claim 8: Uzoh as modified by Shanghai Dianji University as modified by Yoon does not teach the method further comprising receiving a fluid in a chamber of the laser cleaning assembly, wherein the plasma shock wave is generated by focusing the laser beam onto the focal point within the fluid.
However, Lee does teach a method and an apparatus for cleaning a substrate using a laser beam (Abstract) further comprising receiving a fluid (the prior art teaches that the received fluid is a “process gas” [0070]) in a chamber (“gas supply section” [0069] Figure 2 Element 440 connected to the “inner chamber” Figure 1 Element 400 of the laser beam system) of the laser cleaning assembly, wherein the plasma shock wave (“Plasma shock wave” [0065] Figure 1 Element 355) is generated by focusing the laser beam onto the focal point within the fluid (Figure 2 further shows that the plasma shock wave is generated by focusing the laser beam onto the focal point within the fluid) .
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the invention of Uzoh as modified by SDU with the fluid of Lee in order to further reduce “contaminants” (Abstract) on the objects being bonded together
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh (US 2020/0365575 A1) in view of Chylack (US 2017/0186724 A1):
Regarding Claim 16: Uzoh teaches that directly bonding (“method [for]..directly bonding” [0023]) the element (“substrate” [0029] Element 104)) to the integrated device die (die such as an “integrated circuit (IC) chip die” [0027]) comprises directly bonding (directly bonding” [0023]) a conductive (“conductive” [0099]) material of the integrated device die (“die” [0100]) to a conductive material of the element (“conductive” portion of the element [0099])
Uzoh does not teach that the method includes directly bonding a non-conductive material of the first element to a non-conductive material of the second element.
However, Chylack does teach a method of directly bonding two semi-conductor elements in which a non-conductive material (“non-conductive material” [0075]) of the first element (“first semi-conductor element” [0075]) to a non-conductive material (“non-conductive material” [0075]) of the second element (“second semi-conductor element” [0075]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Uzoh with the step of bonding directly bonding a non-conductive material of the first element to a non-conductive material of the second element as taught by Chylack in order to more effectively create a “completed (final) bond” [0072] between the two elements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights