DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Application
In response to Office action dated 02/11/2026 (“02-11-26 OA”), Applicant filed remarks and currently amended title and claims 1, 29, 40, 42, 43 and 47 while currently canceling claims 3 and 27-28 and adding new claims 53-54 in reply dated 04/23/2026 (“04-23-26 Reply”).
Domestic Benefit
Present application 18/262,187 filed 07/19/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/002175 with international filing date of 01/21/2022.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f). Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents (i.e., application number 2021-008275 filed in Japan on 01/21/2021; application number 2021-162509 filed in Japan on 10/01/2021; application number PCT/JP2022/001970 filed in Japan on 01/20/2022) have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)) as of 07/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 06/17/2025 was filed before the 02-11-26 OA. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered.
The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/11/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the 02-11-26 OA. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 because the statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) is provided with the understanding that the English language counterparts are not covered under the statement and are provided by Applicant for translation-type purposes. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Foreign priority is acknowledged supra. Agree with foreign priority remarks by Applicant in the 04-23-26 Reply.
Two information disclose statements are acknowledged supra. Agree with the information disclosure statement remarks by Applicant in the 04-23-26 Reply concerning the 06/17/2025 information disclosure statement.
Applicant’s amendments to title overcome the objection to title as set forth in page 3 of the 02-11-26 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 29, 40, 43 and 47 overcome all prior art rejections based at least in part on Document 1 of Maekawa of the 02-11-26 OA.
It is noted that independent claim 16 is not amended and neither are dependent claims 17-19 thereof. These rejections are maintained and clarified infra. Applicant provides minimum arguments with respect to claim 16.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following minor typographical informality: claim 4 depends on canceled claim 3. For purpose of examination on the merits claim 4 depends on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2014-103291A (translation and citations provided by patent family member US 2016/0118437 A1 to Maekawa et al., hereinafter “Maekawa”).
Regarding claims 16-17, Maekawa discloses a bonding method for bonding two bonded objects (semiconductor wafers), the bonding method comprising:
a hydrophilization treatment process of hydrophilizing at least one bonding surface of the two bonded objects (Maekawa, e.g., ¶¶ [0036]–[0037], Step S3: wet cleaning with pure water (DIW) or ultrasonic cleaning of the bonding surfaces, which hydrophilizes the surfaces by removing contaminants and forming hydrophilic OH groups. Also see ¶ [0045] where it is stated that the cleaning treatment of Step S3 does provide hydrophilicity to the surfaces);
a heat treatment process of heating at least one of bonding surfaces to be bonded to each other of the two bonded objects to a temperature higher than 60°C. in a reduced-pressure atmosphere after the hydrophilization treatment process (Maekawa, e.g., ¶¶ [0039]–[0045], [0077]–[0079], Step S4: degassing heat treatment at 100°C or higher in vacuum/reduced-pressure atmosphere immediately after cleaning to remove moisture);
a bonding process of bonding the two bonded objects after the heat treatment process in a state of maintaining the reduced-pressure atmosphere (Maekawa, e.g., Figs. 1 & 9, ¶¶ [0046]–[0047], Steps S6/S7: temporary and permanent bonding performed in the vacuum chamber without breaking the reduced-pressure state).
Because Maekawa teaches every limitation of Claim 16, either expressly or inherently, the claim is anticipated.
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.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa in view of Document 6 as listed in the 02-11-26 OA.
The invention of claim 18 is made obvious over Maekawa in view of Document 6.
Depositing Si on a bonding surface beforehand in order to increase bonding strength is disclosed by Document 6 (paragraphs [0027]-[0030], [0051]-[0060], Figs. 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Document 6 with Maekawa would have been beneficial in order to increase bonding strength.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa in view of Documents 2-5 as listed in the 02-11-26 OA.
The invention of claim 19 is made obvious over Maekawa in view of Documents 2-5.
In Maekawa, "plasma treatment" (paragraph [0045]) is used as an activation step for bonding, but particle beam radiation as a means for activation of a bonding surface of a substrate is, as illustrated by Document 2 (paragraph [0027], [0061]), Document 3 (paragraph [0053], [0146]-[0147]), Document 4 (paragraphs [0102], [0103], [0118]), and Document 5 (paragraph [0033], etc.), a well-known feature, and particularly document 4 and document 5 make combined disclosure of plasma treatment and particle beam radiation. Radiating Si particles together with a particle beam is, as illustrated by the disclosures of Document 2 (paragraph [0061], etc.), Document 3 (paragraphs [0146], [0147], etc.), and Document 4 (paragraph [0118], etc.), a well-known feature.
In the invention disclosed in Maekawa, a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could easily use particle beam radiation in documents 2-5, instead of plasma treatment, with Si implantation for the purpose of improved bonding surfaces by reducing oxide growth and unwanted moisture for superior bonding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding independent claim 1, the closest prior art is US 2011/0129986 A1 to Libralesso et al. (“Libralesso”).
Regarding claim 1, Libralesso teaches of a bonding method for bonding two bonded objects (see Figure 1: substrate 1 and 1’), the bonding method comprising:
a heat treatment process of heating at least one of bonding surfaces to be bonded to each other of the two bonded objects to a temperature higher than 60°C in a reduced-pressure atmosphere of 10-2 Pa or less to remove moisture remaining on the at least one of the bonding surfaces of the two bonded objects and in an interior of the at least one of the two bonded objects on a bonding surface side (see paragraphs 0053 and 0055 and 0063: before plasma activation there is pressure of 0.1333 mPa that is squarely within the claimed range and a temperature of 150-350°C that is squarely within the claimed range; even though Libralesso teaches of a type of temperature and pressure that is within the claimed range it is entirely unclear if any actual moisture is removed from surface or internally. Weighing the entirety of Libralesso it appears unlikely that paragraph 0053 with paragraph 0055 actually results in moisture removal. Unlike 02-11-26 OA of Document D1 that has a degassing step that thereby removes moisture from the surface and internally);
an activation treatment process of activating the bonding surface of each of the two bonded objects in a state of maintaining a reduced-pressure atmosphere after the heat treatment process (see step F2; see paragraph 0054: there is plasma activation at a different reduce pressure than in the heat treatment process); and
a bonding process of bonding, after the activation treatment process, the two bonded objects in a state of maintaining a reduced-pressure atmosphere and in a state where moisture remaining in the bonding surface of each of the two bonded objects (see step F3; see paragraph 0032; there is in situ bonding thereby implying a reduced pressure).
As such, claim 1 is allowed and dependent claims (i.e., claims 2, 5-15, 20-21, 26 and 51-53) thereof are allowed.
Noted that claim 4 is objected to for a minor typographical informality.
Regarding independent claim 1, journal article entitled, Direct bonding of CMP-Cu films by surface activated bonding (SAB) method to Suga et al. (“Suga”) teaches of reduced pressure throughout the entirety of the SAB process in order to remove residual moisture from the bonding surface and interiors, thereby reducing voids and improving overall bonding strength and reliability of the bonded substrates. The combination of Maekawa with Suga appears to be impermissible hindsight.
The invention as in claims 22-25 is not disclosed in any of Documents cited in the 02-11-26 OA, and is not one that a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of; thus, the invention as in claims 22-25 is allowed.
Documents cited in the 02-11-26 OA do not disclose or suggest the feature set forth in claim 22 of “a cover heating process of heating a cover in a state where an inside of a chamber in which the cover is disposed to include an activation treatment region around at least one of the two bonded objects is brought into a reduced-pressure atmosphere; and a bonding process of bonding the two bonded objects after the cover heating process.”
Independent claim 29 and dependent claims (i.e., claims 30, 31, 35, 37 and 54) thereof are allowed, for same reason as independent claim 1 because similar amendments were made to independent claim 29 as independent claim 1.
Independent claim 40 is allowed, because the closest prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 40, a bonding system for bonding two bonded objects, the bonding system comprising: a hydrophilization treatment device that hydrophilizes at least one of bonded surfaces of the two bonded objects using at least water; a bonder including: a chamber; a first bonded object heating unit that heats at least one bonding surface of each of the two bonded objects to be bonded to each other to a temperature higher than 60°C in a state where the chamber or a standby chamber coupled to the chamber is in a reduced-pressure atmosphere; a stage disposed in the chamber and supporting any one of the two bonded objects; a head disposed to oppose the stage in the chamber and supporting another of the two bonded objects; and a drive unit that moves at least one of the stage and the head to a first direction in which the stage and the head get close to each other or a second direction in which the stage and the head get away from each other; a cover disposed around at least one of the stage and the head in the chamber; a cover heating unit that heats the cover; and a control unit that controls operation of each of the first bonded object heating unit and the drive unit, wherein the control unit bonds the two bonded objects by controlling the first bonded object heating unit to heat at least one of the bonding surfaces of each of the two bonded objects to a temperature higher than 60° C in a reduced-pressure atmosphere, and then controlling the drive unit to move at least one of the stage and the head to the first direction in a state of maintaining a reduced-pressure atmosphere, and the control unit controls the cover heating unit to heat the cover in a state of maintaining the reduced-pressure atmosphere in the chamber before performing a hydrophilization treatment device that hydrophilizes the at least one of the bonded surfaces.
Dependent claim 41 is allowed, because it depends on allowed claim 40.
Independent claim 43 and dependent claims (i.e., claims 44-46) thereof are allowed, for same reason as independent claim 1 because similar amendments were made to independent claim 43 as independent claim 1.
Independent claim 42 is allowed, because it has been rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of previous independent claim 40 as set forth in Allowable Subject Matter section of the 02-11-26 OA.
Independent claim 47 and dependent claims (i.e., claims 48-50) thereof are allowed, for same reason as independent claim 1 because similar amendments were made to independent claim 47 as independent claim 1.
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 JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
15 July 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights