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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub no. 2016/0020239A1) in view of Gao (US Pub no. 2022/0139869 A1) in view of Lopez (US Patent 12,057,429 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al discloses A method for bonding a first substrate (100)to a second substrate(200), the first substrate comprising, prior to bonding, a support layer (110) [0048]0052][0057] the method comprising: removing the support layer (110)from the first substrate (100)so as to free a first surface of the first substrate(100)[0052], said removal resulting in the formation of defects on the first surface of the first substrate[0053]; depositing a thin film of metal (420) onto the first surface[0057]; thermocompression bonding the first substrate(100) to the second substrate(200), the contact between the first substrate (100)and the second substrate(200) being made at the first surface and a second surface of the second substrate(200)[0058], a pressure being between 1 and 100 KN and a temperature being between room temperature and 600 °C during the thermocompression bonding[0058].
However, Liu et al fails to teach that the defects are elastic nanotopology and said thermocompression bonding being carried out using an atomic diffusion bonding technique when a thin film deposition step has been performed; wherein the depositing and the thermocompression bonding are performed under ultra-high vacuum
However, Gao et al discloses when bonding stacked dies the surfaces should have a very low variance in surface topology preferably less than 3nm preferably less than 1 nm [0007](Examiner notes that 3nm and 1 nm surface roughness satisfy the dimensions of elastic nanotopology). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu et al with the teachings of Gao such that elastic nanotopology is achieved so that the surfaces of the dies can be closely mated to form lasting bonds.
Liu et al in view of Gao et al discloses all the claim limitations above but fails to teach said thermocompression bonding being carried out using an atomic diffusion bonding technique when a thin film deposition step has been performed; wherein the depositing and the thermocompression bonding are performed under ultra-high vacuum
However, Lopez et al teaches thermocompression bonding of electrical contacts being carried out using an atomic diffusion bonding technique when a thin film deposition step has been performed; wherein the depositing and the thermocompression bonding are performed under ultra-high vacuum(col. 2, lines 1-7 & 8-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu et al & Gao et al with the teaching of Lopez et al to improve bonding characteristics with contamination free flat surfaces.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al discloses wherein during the thermocompression bonding, the pressure[0058] but fails to teach is between 30 kN and 50 kN. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrive at a pressure range between 30 kN and 50 kN through routine experimentation since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al discloses wherein during the thermocompression bonding and the temperature range[0058]but fails to teach is between 100 °C and 300 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrive at a temperature range between 100 °C and 300 °C through routine experimentation since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al discloses wherein the thermocompression
bonding is carried out [0058]. Since the claim provides alternative language, the limitation of “wherein the thermocompression bonding is carried out by a surface activation bonding technique and the surface activation is carried out by a rare gas selected from argon, helium, neon or xenon” is not required since “thermocompression bonding being carried out using an atomic diffusion bonding technique” has been satisfied in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al in view of Gao et al discloses wherein the thin film deposited in the thin film deposition step is a thin film of copper [0057-Liu et al ]but fails to teach wherein the thermocompression bonding is carried out using an atomic diffusion bonding technique.
However, Lopez et al teaches wherein the thermocompression bonding is carried out using an atomic diffusion bonding technique(col. 2, lines 8-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu et al & Gao et al with the teaching of Lopez et al to improve bonding characteristics with contamination free flat surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813