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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 1, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated September 22, 2025 was submitted with the request for continued examination on December 1, 2025. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 15 was added. Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 9-14 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) of claims 1-8 (¶ 4 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,273,553, cited in IDS submitted May 24, 2023) in view of Gaudin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0006463 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshi discloses a method for bonding a first substrate to a second substrate on respective contact surfaces of the substrates (Abstract of Hoshi, method of bonding semiconductor wafers to each other), the method comprising: accommodating the first substrate on a first mounting surface of a first mounting apparatus and the second substrate on a second mounting surface of a second mounting apparatus (FIG. 3C of Hoshi, substrates #50A and #50B mounted to opposing mounting surfaces of wafer holders #6A #6B); bringing the contact surface of the first substrate into contact with the contact surface of the second substrate at a bond initiation site (4:24-28 of Hoshi, wafers warped into convex chape are brought into contact with one another at their central portions); and bonding the first substrate to the second substrate along a bonding wave which is traveling from the bond initiation site to side edges of the substrates, the bonding comprising adjusting the first mounting surface and/or the second mounting surface in such a way that physical asymmetry of the first mounting surface and/or the second mounting surface is corrected by a gravitational field acting normally on the first mounting surface and/or the second mounting surface to enable a front of the bonding wave to move within a same horizontal plane and enable at least partial compensation of deformation of the first substrate and/or the second substrate (4:29-35 of Hoshi, wafers are released from convex shape and are flattened against one another to form bonded wafer #50; since both substrates are held in a horizontal plane, at least some gravitational field would act on the mounting surfaces to enable the bonding wave).
Hoshi does not specifically disclose moving the first substrate and the second substrate toward one another via a translation movement. Moreover, Hoshi discloses raising the wafer holder #6B such that the wafers contact one another (4:24-28 of Hoshi). Gaudin, however, discloses a method for molecular adhesion (i.e., direct) bonding of wafers (Abstract of Gaudin) wherein the wafers are mounted on support plates which are moved toward one another such that the wafers come into contact with one another to initiate propagation of a bonding wave ([0067] of Gaudin). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the wafer holders in the method of Hoshi towards one another to initiate contact of the wafers since Gaudin establishes that it was known to so so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Hoshi discloses that the deformation of the first substrate and/or the second substrate depends on given factors that influence the traveling of the bonding wave (4:50-62 of Hoshi).
Regarding claim 3, Hoshi discloses that the bond initiation site is located in a center of the contact surfaces (4:27-28 of Hoshi, wafers make initial contact at center portion).
Regarding claim 4, Hoshi discloses that the deformation of the first substrate and/or the second substrate takes place in a lateral direction, convexly, concavely, or a combination one or more thereof (FIGS. 3D, 3E, 4:24-35 of Hoshi, substrates #50A #50B initially deformed convexly and then extend in a lateral direction; claim only requires one of the recited types of deformation).
Regarding claim 5, Hoshi discloses that the deformation of the first substrate and/or the second substrate comprises one of expansion, compression, or curving the first substrate and/or the second substrate (FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4:5-18 of Hoshi, substrates #50A #50B initially deformed into a curved shape).
Regarding claim 6, Hoshi discloses that diameters of the substrates deviate from one another by less than 5 mm (FIGS. 7C-7E, 6:15-23 of Hoshi, wafers are the same size).
Regarding claim 7, Hoshi discloses that the deformation of the first substrate and/or the second substrate takes place through mechanically actuating and/or controlling a temperature of the first mounting apparatus and/or the second mounting apparatus (FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4:5-18 of Hoshi).
Regarding claim 8, Hoshi discloses that the first substrate and/or the second substrate are fixed solely in a region of the side edges on the first and/or second mounting surfaces (FIG. 3A, 3:19-35 of Hoshi, substrates held via adhesion holes #18A #18B in a region of the side edges of the mounting surfaces).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshi in view of Kobayashi (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2012-121120 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 15, Hoshi discloses a method for bonding a first substrate to a second substrate on respective contact surfaces of the substrates (Abstract of Hoshi, method of bonding semiconductor wafers to each other), the method comprising: accommodating the first substrate on a first mounting surface of a first mounting apparatus and the second substrate on a second mounting surface of a second mounting apparatus (FIG. 3C of Hoshi, substrates #50A and #50B mounted to opposing mounting surfaces of wafer holders #6A #6B); bringing the contact surface of the first substrate into contact with the contact surface of the second substrate at a bond initiation site (4:24-28 of Hoshi, wafers warped into convex chape are brought into contact with one another at their central portions); and bonding the first substrate to the second substrate along a bonding wave which is traveling from the bond initiation site to side edges of the substrates, wherein during bonding a physical asymmetry of the first mounting surface and/or the second mounting surface is corrected by a gravitational field acting normally on the first mounting surface and/or the second mounting surface to enable a front of the bonding wave to move within a same horizontal plane and enable at least partial compensation of deformation of the first substrate and/or the second substrate (4:29-35 of Hoshi, wafers are released from convex shape and are flattened against one another to form bonded wafer #50; since both substrates are held in a horizontal plane, at least some gravitational field would act on the mounting surfaces to enable the bonding wave).
Hoshi does not specifically disclose the bonding comprising grinding the first mounting surface and/or the second mounting surface in such a way to introduce the physical asymmetry of the mounting surfaces. Kobayashi, however, discloses a method of making a wafer holder having a convex shape (Abstract of Kobayashi) wherein the support is ground tro have a convex surface ([0009] of Kobayashi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the convex mounting surfaces of the wafer holders in the method of Hoshi using a grinding process since Kobayashi establishes that it was known to form convex wafer holding surfaces using grinding (Abstract, [0009] of Kobayashi). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Hoshi does not teach or reasonably suggest moving the substrates toward one another via translation movement as recited in claim 1 (pg. 6, last full ¶ of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Gaudin reference to address this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746