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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 04/15/2026.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 28 is/are obviated by applicant’s cancellation.
The rejection of claim(s) 9-10 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
All other previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16-17 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-10, 12, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (EP 2709959 B1) in view of Forray (U.S. 2002/0062923), and further in view of Bray (U.S. 2021/0017657, hereinafter Bray2).
Regarding claim 1, Bray teaches a bonded diamond assembly (see e.g. Paragraph 0018, diamond electrode assembly) comprising:
a polycrystalline diamond wafer having a largest linear dimension of 10 to 100 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0032, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2 and 6-7, sheet of polycrystalline diamond), overlapping the claimed range of the present invention,
a substrate (see e.g. Paragraph 0023, line 1); and
a bonding layer located between the diamond and the substrate and bonding them together (see e.g. Paragraph 0033, lines 1-3, diamond mounted on surface of substrate by an adhesive).
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Bray does not explicitly teach the bonding layer, when inspected using ultrasound using a resolution of 50 µm, a focal length selected to inspect the bonding layer, and frequencies of 100 MHz and 30 MHz, comprising any of the following: no area of 10 mm by 10 mm comprising more than 100 voids extending across the thickness of the bonding layer with a largest linear dimension of less than 100 µm, no area of 10 mm by 10 mm comprising more than 5 voids extending across the thickness of the bonding layer with a largest linear dimension of between 100 µm and 1 mm, no area of 10 mm by 10 mm comprising more than 1 void extending across the thickness of the bonding layer with a largest linear dimension of greater than 5 mm, no area of 10 mm by 10 mm comprising more than 200 voids with a largest linear dimension of less than 100 µm, wherein said voids do not extend across the thickness of the bonding layer, no area of 10 mm by 10 mm comprising more than 10 voids with a largest linear dimension of between 100 µm and 2 mm, wherein said voids do not extend across the thickness of the bonding layer, and no area of 10 mm by 10 mm comprising more than 2 voids with a largest linear dimension of greater than 2 mm, wherein said voids do not extend across the thickness of the bonding layer. Bray does however teach the bonding layer comprising an electrically conductive adhesive such as an epoxy adhesive (see e.g. Paragraph 0023, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0033, lines 3-4).
Forray teaches adhesive formulations for bonded assemblies (see e.g. Abstract) which may be electrically conducting epoxy-based adhesives (see e.g. Paragraphs 00014 and 0025), wherein the adhesive in the bonded assembly may be formed completely void-free, i.e. with zero voids of any size (see e.g. Paragraphs 0005-0006 and 0055), such void-free bonding providing a more reliable resulting article without disruption of the adhesive interface (see e.g. Paragraphs 0004 and 0055).
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 bonding layer of Bray to be formed of a void-free adhesive formulation, i.e. with zero voids of any size, as taught by Forray to provide a more reliable bonded assembly without disruption of the adhesive interface. Though Forray does not explicitly relate to diamond assemblies, it is analogous art because it is directed toward the similar problem of providing an assembly with a secure adhesive bond (see e.g. Forray Paragraph 0004), as similarly described in Page 2, lines 8-24, of the instant specification. MPEP § 2141.01(a) states “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).”.
It should be noted that the limitations regarding the specific inspection method, e.g. “ultrasound using a resolution of 50 µm, a focal length selected to inspect the bonding layer, and frequencies of 100 MHz and 30 MHz” are not positively recited limitations of the claimed assembly and only relate to a method of evaluating the claimed assembly. The bonded assembly of Bray as modified by Forray teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed assembly, as stated above, regardless of the specific inspection method.
Modified Bray does not teach a metallized layer on a surface of the polycrystalline diamond wafer located between the surface of the polycrystalline diamond wafer and the bonding layer, but does teach the substrate comprising a metal (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0023, lines 4-5) as well as the desire to create electrical contact between the diamond wafer and the substrate (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0023, lines 1-4).
Bray2 teaches an electrode assembly comprising an electrode body formed from polycrystalline diamond (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a layer of electrically conductive material is provided on a surface of the electrode body to supply electrical current thereto (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 5-9), and the layer of electrically conductive material may preferably comprise a first metal layer applied directly to the electrode body and a metal layer applied to the first metal layer by any suitable technique (see e.g. Paragraph 0024, and Paragraph 0025, lines 1-2), e.g. by the adhesive bonding layer of Bray (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0033, lines 1-3), the direct application of the first metal layer providing improved adhesion and therefore improved current distribution between the electrically conductive material and the diamond of the electrode body (see e.g. Paragraph 0026).
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 polycrystalline diamond wafer of modified Bray to comprise a metal, i.e. metallized, layer applied directly on the surface to be attached to the metal substrate via the bonding layer as taught by Bray2 to improve adhesion and current distribution between the polycrystalline diamond and metal substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Bray as modified by Forray teaches the polycrystalline wafer being electrically conducting (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0032, line 1); the substrate being electrically conducting (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0023, lines 1-2); and the bonding layer being electrically conductive (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0023, lines 1-4; see e.g. Forray Paragraphs 0014 and 0025).
Regarding claim 8, modified Bray teaches the polycrystalline diamond wafer comprising boron doped diamond (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0032, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, Bray as modified by Forray teaches the electrically conductive bonding layer being an electrically conductive epoxy resin (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0023, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0033, lines 3-4; see e.g. Forray Paragraphs 0014 and 0025).
Regarding claim 10, Bray as modified by Forray teaches the electrically conductive epoxy resin being formed from a two-part epoxy resin (see e.g. Forray Paragraphs 0011-0014, epoxy-based adhesive formulation with curing catalyst).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bray teaches the polycrystalline diamond wafer having an average thickness of 200 µm to 1 mm (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0038, lines 7-8, 200 to 1000 microns).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bray teaches the polycrystalline diamond wafer having a largest linear dimension of 10 to 100 mm (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2 and 6-7), overlapping the claimed ranges of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bray teaches the substrate comprising a metal (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0023, line 4).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bray teaches the metal being selected from any of titanium, tungsten and molybdenum (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0023, lines 4-5).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray, Forray and Bray2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGuire et al. (U.S. 2012/0087072).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bray teaches all the elements of the assembly of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Bray does not explicitly teach the bonding layer, when inspected using ultrasound using a resolution of 50 µm, a focal length selected to inspect the bonding layer, and frequencies of 100 MHz and 30 MHz, comprising any of the following:
McGuire teaches a device comprising a film applied to a surface via an adhesive (see e.g. Paragraph 0009, lines 1-11), wherein the adhesive may be manufactured or filtered so that is free of contaminants, specifically with fewer than 30 contaminant particles larger than 5 µm per cubic meter (see e.g. Paragraph 0077), as the presence of such contaminants may reduce adhesion (see e.g. Paragraph 0005).
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 bonding layer of modified Bray to be manufactured or filtered to be free of contaminants, specifically with fewer than 30 contaminant particles larger than 5 µm per cubic meter, as taught by McGuire to prevent such contaminants from reducing the adhesion in the bonded assembly. Though McGuire does not explicitly relate to diamond assemblies, it is analogous art because it is directed toward the similar problem of providing an assembly with a secure adhesive bond (see e.g. McGuire Paragraph 0005), as similarly described in Page 2, lines 8-24, of the instant specification. MPEP § 2141.01(a) states “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).”.
As stated above, the limitations regarding the specific inspection method, e.g. “ultrasound using a resolution of 50 µm, a focal length selected to inspect the bonding layer, and frequencies of 100 MHz and 30 MHz” are not positively recited limitations of the claimed assembly and only relate to a method of evaluating the claimed assembly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray, Forray and Bray2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Francis (U.S. 2019/0214260).
Regarding claim 5, modified Bray teaches all the elements of the assembly of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Bray does not explicitly teach a surface of the polycrystalline diamond wafer having an average flatness selected from any of no more than 40 µm, no more than 30 µm, no more than 20 µm and no more than 10 µm. Bray does however teach that the polycrystalline diamond wafer may be a wafer known in the art (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0032, lines 1-3).
Francis teaches a bonded diamond assembly (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising a polycrystalline diamond wafer bonded to a substrate via a bonding layer (see e.g. Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0035 and 0039), wherein the diamond wafer may have a thickness variation, i.e. flatness of a surface, of no more than 40 µm (see e.g. Paragraph 0041, lines 17-27 and 29-30), as may be required for various applications using diamond wafers such as semiconductor, photolithographic and optical applications (see e.g. Paragraphs 0002-0003).
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 diamond wafer of modified Bray to be the polycrystalline diamond wafer with a thickness variation, i.e. flatness, of no more than 40 µm taught by Francis as a particular suitable polycrystalline diamond wafer known in the art for forming a bonded diamond assembly, such flatness also enabling use of the bonded diamond assembly in various applications such as semiconductor, photolithographic and optical applications. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray, Forray and Bray2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 20190181113).
Regarding claim 13, modified Bray teaches all the elements of the assembly of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Bray does not explicitly teach the bonding layer having an average thickness selected from any of 10 µm to 250 µm, 15 µm to 150 µm, and 20 µm to 100 µm. Bray does however teach the bonding layer comprising an epoxy-based adhesive (see e.g. Bray Paragraph 0033, lines 3-4)
Morita teaches an assembly comprising a semiconductor wafer attached to a substrate via an epoxy-based adhesive bonding layer (see e.g. Paragraphs 0008-0009 and 0013), wherein the adhesive bonding layer preferably has a thickness of 1 to 100 µm to (see e.g. Paragraph 0012), overlapping the claimed ranges of the present invention (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above), in order to provide sufficient adhesiveness and reduce production difficulties (see e.g. Paragraph 0063).
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 bonding layer of modified Bray to have a thickness of 1 to 100 µm as taught by Morita as a suitable thickness for an epoxy-based adhesive bonding layer for attachment of a wafer to a substrate that may provide sufficient adhesiveness and reduce production difficulties. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 over Bray in view of Forray, particularly regarding the metallization layer, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bray, Forray and Bray2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights