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.
Claims 16-19, 22-27 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. [US 2017/0243853 A1] in view of Bijnen et al. [US 2007/0252994 A1] and further in view of Chen et al. [US 2014/0002822 A1].
Regarding claims 16, 25, 30 and 31, Huang et al. discloses a method (Fig. 7) / a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program instructions therein (paragraphs [0045]-[0047]) for determining alignment between a first substrate and a second substrate, wherein the first substrate is bonded to the second substrate (as shown in Figs. 1-5, substrates 120a and 120b), the method comprising:
illuminating a compound alignment structure (as shown in Figs. 1-5, alignment structures 122a and 122b).
Huang et al. does not teach wherein in the alignment structure comprises a first diffractive structure on the first substrate and a second diffractive structure on the second substrate.
However, Bijnen et al. discloses a system for alignment of substrates for bonding wherein the alignment marks may include diffraction patterns (paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide alignment structures of diffractive patterns, as taught by Bijnen et al. in the system of Huang et al. because such a modification provides a suitable alternative alignment structure for providing a greater focus depth with improved alignment of the substrates (paragraph [0069] of Bijnen et al.)
The combination of Huang et al. and Bijnen et al. does not explicitly teach determining, based on an observed asymmetry in intensity of complementary diffracted orders resultant from the illumination of the compound structure, relative alignment between the first substrate and the second substrate.
However, Chen et al. discloses a diffraction-based overlay (DBO) method wherein the intensity asymmetry of the diffracted orders are used to determine the relative displacement between the lower periodic structure and the upper periodic structure (paragraphs [0081]-[0083], see also Figs. 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a diffraction-based metrology method wherein the intensity asymmetry of the diffracted orders are used to determine the relative alignment, as taught by Chen et al. in the system of Huang et al. and Bijnen et al. because such a modification provides a suitable alternative alignment metrology method with increase accuracy of alignment (paragraph [0045] of Chen et al.).
Regarding claims 17 and 32, Chen et al. discloses wherein the determining comprises determining the relative alignment based on an intensity difference between complementary higher diffraction orders resultant from the illumination of the compound structure (paragraphs [0081]-[0083], see also Figs. 7-10).
Regarding claims 18, 19, 26 and 27, Bijnen et al. and Chen et al. discloses wherein the first diffractive structure comprises a first etched periodic structure and the second diffractive structure comprises a second etched periodic structure, wherein the first diffractive structure and the second diffractive structure each comprise a plurality of lines (paragraph [0056] of Bijnen et al. and Figs. 7-10 of Chen et al.).
Regarding claims 22 and 33, Chen et al. discloses further comprising determining a description of the relative alignment as a function of location over the bonded substrate stack from a plurality of the compound alignment structures (paragraphs [0081]-[0083], see also Figs. 7-10).
Regarding claims 23 and 34, Huang et al. as modified discloses further comprising measuring a local distance in a direction perpendicular to the substrate plane between the first and second diffractive structures based on diffraction characteristics from the compound alignment structure with respect to expected diffraction characteristics, to quantify bonding quality (paragraphs [0081]-[0083], see also Figs. 7-10).
Regarding claim 24, Huang et al. discloses a system comprising: a lithographic apparatus configured to provide product structures to a substrate in a lithographic process; a bonding apparatus configured to bond processed substrates; and a processor configured to optimize control of the lithographic apparatus and/or bonding apparatus during a manufacturing process (paragraph [0002], see also Figs. 1-7).
Claims 20, 21, 28 and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. as modified in view of Liu et al. [US 2019/0094682 A1].
Regarding claims 20, 21, 28 and 35, Huang et al. as modified discloses the method / the stack, as applied above.
Huang et al. as modified does not teach wherein the first and second substrates are bonded together with one of the substrates inverted and its respective diffractive structure reversed with respect to the other diffractive structure, wherein the first and second substrates are substantially transparent to the illumination used in the illuminating.
However, Liu et al. discloses an example wherein the first and second substrates are bonded together with one of the substrates inverted wherein one of the first and second substrates are substantially transparent (paragraph [0044], see also Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a transparent or invert one of the substrates, as taught by Liu et al. in the system of Huang et al. as modified because such a modification a suitable alternative substrate and orientation of a bonded substrate that is part of the processing for a specific product.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. as modified in view of Huang et al. [US 2015/0214082 A1 ].
Regarding claim 29, Huang et al. as modified discloses the stack, as applied above.
Huang et al. as modified does not teach comprising a plurality of the compound alignment structures formed by plural first and second diffractive structures over an extent of the respective substrate surfaces.
However, Huang et al. discloses a method of bonding a first substrate and a second substrate wherein a plurality of the compound alignment structures formed by plural first and second diffractive structures over an extent of the respective substrate surfaces (as shown in Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide plural first and second diffractive structures over an extent of the respective substrate surfaces, as taught by Huang et al. in the system of Huang et al. as modified because such a modification a suitable alternative of multiple alignment marks for more accurately aligning the bonded wafers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-35 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882