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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 12-19 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-18 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite because the preamble is directed to manufacturing a stacked semiconductor structure, however, the claim fails to positively recite a “semiconductor structure” or forming a “stacked semiconductor structure”. The claim only recites a first and second substrate and it’s unclear whether applicant’s second substrate is that of a stacked semiconductor structure. Clarification is requested. Claims 13-14 are indefinite as the claim should recites “removing the residues and the particles” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 should be amended to recite “first substrate” throughout the claim, for proper antecedent basis as claim 15 is dependent on claim 1, which recites a first and a second substrate. Similarly, claim 16 is indefinite as it’s unclear whether “ the substrate” refers to the first or the second substrate. Claim 16 is further indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “at least one degas module before”, as it appears that additional limitations have been inadvertently deleted. Claim 17 is indefinite in view of its dependency on claim 16. Claims 17-18 are further indefinite for the same reasons as that of claim 16, as the claims should be amended to recited “the first substrate” for proper antecedent basis. Claims 23-24 are indefinite because “ a brush box cleaning module” should be amended to “the brush box cleaning module” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uzoh et al. (US2018/0308819A1).
In reference to claim 12, Uzoh et al. teach a substrate 306 comprising a plurality of dies 310 (paragraphs 45, 50, Fig. 3), cleaning the first substrate using a brush box cleaning. Specifically, applicant has not structurally defined the brush box cleaning and broadly the limitations read on cleaning with a brush. Applicant is also directed to Fig. 3, steps 3-4, wherein a brush 312 cleans the die. Paragraph 45 teaches for example, cleaning with a rotary brush to remove any remaining residue, and bonding the plurality of dies of the first substrate 306 to a second substrate 314 (steps 9-10) of Fig. 3. In reference to a brush box module, Uzoh et al. teach a cleaning system 1000 comprising a rotary unit 1008 having a plurality of one or more brushes 1004 (paragraphs 65, 68) and bonding the plurality of dies of the source substrate to a receiving substrate (steps 10-11 of Fig. 3). Paragraph 65 teaches an integrated brush system. The abstract teaches systems include integrated cleaning components arranged to perform multiple cleaning processes simultaneously. Paragraphs 10 and 21 teaches various implementations include various combination of components for performing the various embodiments of techniques. Applicant is directed to paragraph 9 which teaches that dies 310 are transferred from the dicing sheet 306 (first substrate) to the receiving surface 314 of a second substrate for bonding to the receiving surface 314 via hybrid bonding (paragraphs 40, 55). In reference to a stacked semiconductor structure, applicant is directed to paragraph 6 for example.
Re claim 13, applicant is directed to element 306 (dicing tape), and paragraph 36 for example teaches various cleaning techniques to remove unwanted organic residues that are formed on the dies which remain on the dicing tape 306. Re claim 14, refer to step 4 of Fig. 3 and paragraph 35. Re claim 15, refer to step 7 of Fig. 3 and paragraph 37. Paragraph 68 teaches a rotary unit 1008 which reads on a brush box cleaning module. Re claim 16, per degassing applicant’s specification teaches in paragraph 37 that a degassing process involves heating the substrate to remove moisture. In the view applicant’s specification and the indefiniteness, the degassing reads on step 5 of Fig. 3, wherein the substrate is irradiated with UV radiation. In reference to degas module, paragraph 65 teaches using cleaning systems 1000. Re claim 17, refer to step 8 of Fig. 3, paragraph 38. The limitations of increasing the hydrophilicity is a result of treating with plasma, and therefore, the limitations are inherently met. Re claim 18, the limitations are met in view of Fig. 3, wherein the plurality of dies 310 are aligned and bonded to the substrate 306. Applicant is also directed to paragraph 4.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh et al. (US2018/0308819A1) in view of Chen et al. (US2015/0243537).
Re claim 20, Uzoh et al. teach a source substrate 306 having a plurality of dies 310, as discussed above, wherein the surface of the substrate is cleaned by exposing the plurality of dies to a surface of rotating brush (Fig. 3, step 4, paragraph 35). In reference to a brush box module, Uzoh et al. teach a cleaning system 1000 comprising a rotary unit 1008 having a plurality of one or more brushes 1004 (paragraphs 65, 68) and bonding the plurality of dies of the source substrate to a receiving substrate (steps 10-11 of Fig. 3). Paragraph 65 teaches an integrated brush system. The abstract teaches systems include integrated cleaning components arranged to perform multiple cleaning processes simultaneously. Paragraphs 10 and 21 teaches various implementations include various combination of components for performing the various embodiments of techniques. Uzoh is suggestive of an integrated system comprising both cleaning and bonding components to perform the various techniques (paragraphs 10 and 21). However, Uzoh et al. does not specifically recite a cleaning module integrated with a hybrid bonding platform.
Alternatively, Chen et al. teach mechanisms for cleaning a semiconductor wafer for hybrid bonding. Applicant is directed to Fig. 4 which clearly teaches cleaning module 430 integrated with a hybrid bonding platform 440 (paragraph 36). Paragraph 26 further teaches that the cleaning process can include a brush clean. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Uzoh et al. to include an integrated cleaning system with a hybrid bonding platform, as taught by Chen et al. for purposes of providing increased efficiency and throughput during processing of the semiconductor wafer. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have recognized the added benefits of an integrated system which allows for processing the wafer between individual chambers with reduced risk from contamination as a result of exposure to undesirable environments.
Re claim 23 refer to step 7 of Fig. 3, wherein the wet clean occurs prior to a brush cleaning step of step 12, wherein the dies are bonded in step 14. In reference to a wet clean module integrated with a hybrid bonding platform, Uzoh et al. teach in the abstract that various cleaning components can be integrated. Furthermore, Chen et al., as previously recited teach a cleaning module integrated with a hybrid platform, wherein the cleaning module can include wet clean (paragraph 26 of Chen et al.) Re claim 24 refer to steps 4 and 6-7 of Uzoh et al., and corresponding paragraphs 35-37. Re claim 25, refer to step 6 of Uzoh et al. and Fig. 4 of Chen et al. Re claim 26, refer to step 5 of Fig. 3 of Uzoh et al and further the abstract of Uzoh et al. which teach that various chemical components and systems can be integrated to perform the various techniques, which would include both cleaning and bonding. Re claim 27, refer to steps 11 and 14 of Uzoh et al.
12. Claim(s) 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh et al. (US2018/0308819A1) in view of Chen et al. (US2015/0243537) and further in view of Sin et al. (US2005/0109371A1).
Re claims 21 and 28, Uzoh et al. teach cleaning the first and second substrate with a rotating brush (steps 4 and 12). However, Uzoh et al. in view of Chen et al. fail to teach the limitations of introducing a cleaning agent while the rotating brush is in contact with the substrate surface, rotating the substrate, and rinsing the substrate with a rinsing agent. Sin et al. teach a conventional brush box module 101 wherein a cleaning agent 115 is introduced to the wafer S1 as the rotating brush 105 is in contact of a rotating substrate (Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs 13, 16, 19-20), followed by rinsing for purposes of effectively cleaning the substrate surface of contaminants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Uzoh et al., to include contacting the substrate with a cleaning solution while scrubbing and rotating the substrate surface, followed by rinsing, as taught by Chen et al., for purposes of performing the same function of effectively cleaning the substrate surface of contaminants.
13. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh et al. (US2018/0308819A1) in view of Chen et al. (US2015/0243537) and Sin et al. (US2005/0109371A1) and further in view of Whitlock et al. (US4806171).
Uzoh et al. in view of Chen et al. and Sin et al. do not teach cryogenic aerosol particles directed towards the substrate surface. However, paragraph 37 of Uzoh et al. which teaches a CO2 particles stream as suitable cleaning techniques, but does not teach the limitations directed to an aerosol.
Whitlock et al. teach an apparatus for removing small particles from a substrate surface comprising a source of fluid carbon dioxide expanded into a mixture containing solid and gaseous CO2 particles for removing contaminants from the substrate surface (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Uzoh et al. to include cryogenic aerosol particles, such as aerosol CO2 particles, as taught by Whitlock et al., for purposes of performing the same function of cleaning the substrate surface.
14. Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh et al. (US2018/0308819A1) in view of Chen et al. (US2015/0243537) and further in view of Whitlock et al. (US4806171).
Re claim 29, the limitations are similar to that of claim 20, with the additional limitations of directing a plurality cryogenic aerosol particles. It appears that claim 29 is a combination of claims 20 and 22.
Re claim 29, Uzoh et al. teach a source substrate 306 having a plurality of dies 310, as discussed above, wherein the surface of the substrate is cleaned by exposing the plurality of dies to a surface of rotating brush (Fig. 3, step 4, paragraph 35). In reference to a brush box module, Uzoh et al. teach a cleaning system 1000 comprising a rotary unit 1008 having a plurality of one or more brushes 1004 (paragraphs 65, 68) and bonding the plurality of dies of the source substrate to a receiving substrate (steps 10-11 of Fig. 3). Paragraph 65 teaches an integrated brush system. The abstract teaches systems include integrated cleaning components arranged to perform multiple cleaning processes simultaneously. Paragraphs 10 and 21 teaches various implementations include various combination of components for performing the various embodiments of techniques. Uzoh is suggestive of an integrated system comprising both cleaning and bonding components to perform the various techniques (paragraphs 10 and 21). However, Uzoh et al. does not specifically recite a cleaning module integrated with a hybrid bonding platform.
Alternatively, Chen et al. teach mechanisms for cleaning a semiconductor wafer for hybrid bonding. Applicant is directed to Fig. 4 which clearly teaches cleaning module 430 integrated with a hybrid bonding platform 440 (paragraph 36). Paragraph 26 further teaches that the cleaning process can include a brush clean. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Uzoh et al. to include an integrated cleaning system with a hybrid bonding platform, as taught by Chen et al. for purposes of providing increased efficiency and throughput during processing of the semiconductor wafer. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would have recognized the added benefits of an integrated system which allows for processing the wafer between individual chambers with reduced risk from contamination as a result of exposure to undesirable environments.
Uzoh et al. in view of Chen et al. do not teach cryogenic aerosol particles directed towards the substrate surface. However, paragraph 37 of Uzoh et al. which teaches a CO2 particles stream as suitable cleaning techniques, but does not teach the limitations directed to an aerosol. Whitlock et al. teach an apparatus for removing small particles from a substrate surface comprising a source of fluid carbon dioxide expanded into a mixture containing solid and gaseous CO2 particles for removing contaminants from the substrate surface (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Uzoh et al. to include cryogenic aerosol particles, such as aerosol CO2 particles, as taught by Whitlock et al., for purposes of performing the same function of cleaning the substrate surface. Re claim 30, refer to step 6 of Uzoh et al. and Fig. 4 of Chen et al.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Uzoh et al. teach techniques for wafer processing. Liu et al. teach wafer bonding. Shih et al. teach de-bonding. Uzoh et al. teach a hybrid apparatus. Uzoh et al. teach bonding methods. Wang et al. teach degassing and hybrid bonding. Liantro et al. teach plasma and UV.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc