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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/15/2023 has been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (CN 107331643A, hereinafter “Du”) in view of Yamauchi (CN 112640067, however it’s equivalent US PG Pub 2021/03133211 is used for the rejection, hereinafter “Yamauchi”).
In regards to claim 1, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) a device for wafer bonding alignment, comprising:
a first fixing apparatus, configured to fix a first wafer (60), a first alignment mark (61) being disposed on the first wafer (60);
a second fixing apparatus, configured to fix a second wafer (70), a second alignment mark (71) being disposed on the second wafer (71), and
the second wafer (70) being disposed opposite to the first wafer (60);
a reflection apparatus (35), located between the first fixing apparatus and the second fixing apparatus; and
a mark reader (40/50), configured to read position information of the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71) using the reflection apparatus (35) to align the first wafer (60) fixed on the first fixing apparatus and the second wafer (70) fixed on the second fixing apparatus.
The prior art describes a "mobile lower silicon wafer (70)", as disclosed in processing step (S4), which indicates controlled movement and positioning of the wafer during the process. For the wafers to be positioned precisely relative to each other and the reflection apparatus, and for one wafer to be described as "mobile," there must necessarily be some mechanism to hold, position, and move these wafers. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that wafers in such processing applications cannot be "free-floating" but must be secured in fixtures or holders to maintain proper alignment and enable controlled movement.
Therefore, even though not explicitly described, fixing apparatuses (holders, fixtures, or similar devices) that secure the first and second wafers are inherently present in the prior art system - they are necessary for the described functionality to work. Examiner concludes that because fixing apparatuses are inherently required for the prior art system to function as described, all elements of claim 1 are present in the prior art even though the fixing apparatuses are not explicitly disclosed but rather inherently present.
Du is silent about the reflection apparatus comprises a first reflection surface and a second reflection surface, a reflection layer is formed on the first reflection surface and the second reflection surface; the reflection apparatus is Σ-shaped.
Yamauchi while disclosing component mounting system (See, for example, Fig. 17) the reflection apparatus (337) comprises a first reflection surface (337a) and a second reflection surface (337b), a reflection layer (a mirror, by its very nature and function, requires a reflection layer on its surfaces to operate as a mirror. Without such a reflection layer, the surfaces would not function as reflection surfaces, and the device would not constitute a mirror.) is formed on the first reflection surface (337a) and the second reflection surface (337b); the reflection apparatus (337) is Δ-shaped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yamauchi into Du because this would help reduce the calculated positional deviation amount, and this would help mount component on the substrate with high accuracy.
In regards to the Σ-shaped reflection apparatus, Although the prior art does not explicitly disclose an Σ-shaped reflection apparatus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Δ-shaped reflection apparatus of the prior art to have an Σ-shaped because the selection between different geometric configurations represents a design choice within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed reflection apparatus was significant. See, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, the claimed Σ-shaped shaped configuration does not appear to produce any unexpected results that would not be anticipated from the known properties of angled reflection surfaces.
In regards to claim 10, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) a method for wafer bonding alignment, performed by a device for wafer bonding alignment, comprising:
fixing a first wafer (60) to a first fixing apparatus, a first alignment mark (61) being disposed on the first wafer (60);
fixing a second wafer (71) to a second fixing apparatus, a second alignment mark (71) being disposed on the second wafer (70), and
the second wafer (70) being disposed opposite to the first wafer (60);
disposing a reflection apparatus (35) between the first fixing apparatus/first wafer (60) and the second fixing apparatus/second wafer (70); and
providing a mark reader (40/50), and reading, by the mark reader, position information of the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71) using the reflection apparatus (35) to align the first wafer (60) fixed on the first fixing apparatus and the second wafer (70) fixed on the second fixing apparatus (See, for example, In step (S3) and (S4))
The prior art describes a "mobile lower silicon wafer (70)", as disclosed in processing step (S4), which indicates controlled movement and positioning of the wafer during the process. For the wafers to be positioned precisely relative to each other and the reflection apparatus, and for one wafer to be described as "mobile," there must necessarily be some mechanism to hold, position, and move these wafers. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that wafers in such processing applications cannot be "free-floating" but must be secured in fixtures or holders to maintain proper alignment and enable controlled movement.
Therefore, even though not explicitly described, fixing apparatuses (holders, fixtures, or similar devices) that secure the first and second wafers are inherently present in the prior art system - they are necessary for the described functionality to work. Examiner concludes that because fixing apparatuses are inherently required for the prior art system to function as described, all elements of claim 1 are present in the prior art even though the fixing apparatuses are not explicitly disclosed but rather inherently present.
Du is silent about the reflection apparatus comprises a first reflection surface and a second reflection surface, a reflection layer is formed on the first reflection surface and the second reflection surface; the reflection apparatus is Σ-shaped.
Yamauchi while disclosing component mounting system (See, for example, Fig. 17) the reflection apparatus (337) comprises a first reflection surface (337a) and a second reflection surface (337b), a reflection layer (a mirror, by its very nature and function, requires a reflection layer on its surfaces to operate as a mirror. Without such a reflection layer, the surfaces would not function as reflection surfaces, and the device would not constitute a mirror.) is formed on the first reflection surface (337a) and the second reflection surface (337b); the reflection apparatus (337) is Δ-shaped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yamauchi into Du because this would help reduce the calculated positional deviation amount, and this would help mount component on the substrate with high accuracy.
In regards to the Σ-shaped reflection apparatus, Although the prior art does not explicitly disclose an Σ-shaped reflection apparatus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Δ-shaped reflection apparatus of the prior art to have an Σ-shaped because the selection between different geometric configurations represents a design choice within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed reflection apparatus was significant. See, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, the claimed Σ-shaped shaped configuration does not appear to produce any unexpected results that would not be anticipated from the known properties of angled reflection surfaces.
In regards to claims 2 and 11, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) the mark reader (40/50) is further configured to read the position information of the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71) at a same time.
In regards to claims 3 and 12, Du discloses all limitations of claim 1 above but silent about a number of the first alignment marks and a number of the second alignment marks are both greater than or equal to two.
Yamauchi while disclosing component mounting system (See, for example, Fig. 17) a number of the first alignment marks (MC1a, MC1b) and a number of the second alignment marks (MC2a, MC2b) are both greater than or equal to two.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yamauchi into Du because this would help reduce the calculated positional deviation amount, and this would help mount component on the substrate with high accuracy.
In regards to claim 4, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71) are further configured to acquire incident detection light (a, b) and reflect the detection light to the reflection apparatus (35),
the reflection apparatus (35) is further configured to reflect the reflected detection light to the mark reader (40/50), and
the mark reader (40/50) is further configured to acquire the reflected detection light that is reflected by the reflection apparatus (35) so as to read the position information of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (See, for example, page 4).
In regards to claim 13, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) wherein reading, by the mark reader (40/50), position information of the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71) using the reflection apparatus (35) comprises: acquiring, by the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71), incident detection light (a, b);
reflecting, by the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71), the detection light (a, b) to the reflection apparatus (35);
reflecting, by the reflection apparatus (35), the reflected detection light (a, b) to the mark reader (40/50); and
acquiring, by the mark reader (40/50), the reflected detection light (a, b) that is reflected by the reflection apparatus (35) so as to read the position information of the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71).
In regards to claims 5 and 14, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) detection light reflected by the first alignment mark (61) enters the mark reader (40/50) after being reflected by the first reflection surface, and detection light reflected by the second alignment mark (71) enters the mark reader (40/50) after being reflected by the second reflection surface.
In regards to claims 7 and 16, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) an included angle between the first reflection surface (the surface of 35 where beam ‘a’ incident on) and a plane of the first wafer is 45°, an included angle between the second reflection surface (the surface of 35 where beam ‘b’ incident on) and a plane of the second wafer being 45°.
In regards to claims 9 and 18, Du discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2)
a calculation apparatus (“…It can be understood that the alignment marker 61 and the shape of the alignment mark 71 may be the same or different, but the same shape marks in back end easier processing and calculation.”, See, for example, Page 4)., configured to calculate the position information of the first alignment mark (61) and the second alignment mark (71) read by the mark reader (40/50), and
align the first wafer (60) fixed on the first fixing apparatus and the second wafer (70) fixed on the second fixing apparatus according to a calculation result (“…It should be noted that alignment device of this invention in this embodiment for upper silicon chip is aligned with the lower silicon chip…”, See, for example, Page 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new amendments in claims 1 and 10 have been considered and are addressed in the rejection stated above.
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 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-30423042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893