DETAILED ACTION
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
A telephone call was made on 24 February 2026 to request an authorization of the Examiner’s amendment, but did not result in an authorization.
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed on 23 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are now pending in the application.
Amendments to the Specification and claims 16 and 18 to overcome the informalities are acceptable. Therefore, the Specification and claim objections have been withdrawn.
Amendments to the claims 16-17 to overcome the rejections under U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 16-17 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 23 January 2026, with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-17 has been withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 20170221856) in view of Kim (KR 101814554).
[AltContent: textbox (substrate )][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (substrate support)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
389
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7, Yamauchi.
Regarding claim 18, Yamauchi teaches, a method for direct bonding (see Abstract): comprising:
supporting a substrate (second substrate 301, see annotated Fig. 7) on a substrate support (stage 401, Fig. 7);
supporting a die (402) with an end effector (holder mechanism 440, Fig. 5) of a die handling tool (see substrate supporting means 400, Fig. 1);
contacting the substrate with only a bond initiation region of the die (central portion 302c of the substrate 302, see Fig. 7); and
after contacting the substrate with only the bond initiation region, allowing contact between the substrate and other regions of the die (see para. [0100], Figs. 7 to 15).
[AltContent: textbox (cells )]
PNG
media_image2.png
589
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Kim.
Yamauchi does not teach, the end effector comprising a plurality of voltage activated cells; or applying a different voltage to a center voltage activated cell of the plurality of the voltage activated cells relative to an outer voltage activated cell to induce bowing of the die. However, Kim teaches an electrostatic chuck 60 for direct bonding in Fig. 1, including supporting a substrate W on a substrate support 40, in which,
the end effector comprising a plurality of voltage activated cells (see, center electrode 51 and the edge electrode 52 in annotated Fig. 1 above, electrostatic force is generated between the adsorption electrode 50 and the wafer W by the power e.g., direct current voltage, applied from the electrostatic chuck power source 60, and the wafer W is adsorbed on the electrostatic dielectric layer 24, para. [0021]);
applying a different voltage to a center voltage activated cell of the plurality of the voltage activated cells relative to an outer voltage activated cell to induce bowing of the die (the same or different voltages may be applied to each of the center electrode and the edge electrode, para. [0008]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kim, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for direct bonding of Yamauchi and to replace the die with an electrostatic die as taught by Kim so that it enables selectively attaching or detaching a substrate while direct bonding to the substrate.
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Yamauchi does not teach the recited limitations. However, Kim further teaches,
19. The method of Claim 18, wherein allowing contact between the substrate and other regions of the die comprises transmitting a signal from a controller (control unit 200, Fig. 1) to the plurality of adjacent voltage activated cells to control contact between the substrate and other regions of the die (a control unit 200 that controls the operation of the electrostatic chuck 100, para. [0016]; electrostatic chuck power supply 60 can apply voltage to the center electrode 51 and the edge electrode 52 continuously or discontinuously, para. [0031]; In order to create a slope of the second electric field (E2), the slope is formed by changing the voltage applied to the center electrode 51 and the edge electrode 52…the second electric field (E2) gradient can be created in various ways to increase the rate of removal of residual charge, para. [0034]).
20. The method of Claim 18, wherein contacting the substrate with a bond initiation region of a die comprises transmitting a signal from a controller (control unit 200, Fig. 1) to the plurality of adjacent voltage activated cells to control the propagation of a bonding wave between the die and the substrate (see, para. [0016] and [0031-0034]).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kim, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for direct bonding of Yamauchi and to replace the die with an electrostatic die as taught by Kim so that it enables optimizing the attaching or detaching speed to die while bonding a substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-13 and 15-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant’s arguments starting on Page 7 of the response filed on 23 January 2026 reviewed carefully and amendments to the claim filed on 23 January 2026 in alignment with the allowable subject matter indicated in the previous office action dated 24 July 2025 would overcome the specification and claim objections and claim rejections based on 35 USC §112, 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103.
Though, prior art of record Yamaguchi teaches a method for direct bonding including supporting a die with a die handling tool and a vacuum suction type holder mechanism, Yamauchi fails to teach the die handling tool comprises attracting the die to a die supporting surface by adhesion with an electrorheological or magnetorheological gel between the die and the die supporting surface.
Though, prior art of record Lee teaches the die handling tool comprises attracting the die to a die supporting surface by capillary action with a liquid layer between the die and the die supporting surface, Lee fails to teach an electrorheological or magnetorheological gel between the die and the die supporting surface.
Prior art of record Uzoh or Goto or Kim does not teach attracting the die to a die supporting surface by capillary action or an electrorheological or magnetorheological gel between the die and the die supporting surface.
Therefore, claims 1 and 16 are allowed. Claims 2-13, 15 and 17 are allowed by virtue of its dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729