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 Arguments
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s page 5 argument regarding the prior art of Arimoto not teaching the resin layer as an adhesive layer. However, a sacrificial layer in this art, and a resin in particular, is known to be adhesive as it adhesively bonds to a substrate/layer. The adhesive strength of the sacrificial layer is not a limiting element of claim 1, although sacrificial layers are designed to lose adhesiveness during a process, such as by the irridation and developing process taught by Arimoto [P. 9, ¶7].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s page 6 arguments regarding the claim 1 amendment of the sacrificial layer polymer comprising a polyamic acid or polyamideimide not being taught by Arimoto. However, Arimoto teaches the polymer of the sacrificial layer can comprise a polyamideimide [P. 8, ¶ 4], and can comprise a polyamic acid catalyst [P. 8, ¶ 3].
The 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments on pages 6-9 are regarding the argued deficiencies of Arimoto, above.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Arimoto (JP2020050734A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A temporary bonding method, comprising: providing a stack comprising: a first substrate having an upper surface and a lower surface; an adhesive layer in contact with the lower surface; a second substrate having a first surface; and a sacrificial layer disposed between the first surface and the adhesive layer; and applying laser energy to the sacrificial layer to facilitate separation of the first substrate from the second substrate, wherein the sacrificial layer is formed by a composition comprising an alkali-soluble polymer; and a solvent for dispersing or dissolving the alkali-soluble polymer, wherein the alkali-soluble polymer contains a divalent residue of a diamine having a carboxyl group, and the alkali-soluble polymer comprises polyamic acid or polyamideimide.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Arimoto teaches a temporary bonding method, comprising: providing a stack comprising: a first substrate, which is a semiconductor electronic component [P. 8, ¶ 5-6], which can be a deposited film having an upper surface and a lower surface [P. 17, ¶ 1 – Cu film]; and a heat-resistant resin adhesive layer in contact with the lower surface of the deposited Cu film [P. 17, ¶ 1].
Arimoto teaches a second substrate, or support substrate, which can be a glass substrate [P. 16, last ¶], having a first (top) surface spin-coated with a sacrificial layer [P. 16, last ¶] disposed between the first surface and the adhesive layer [P. 17, ¶ 1]; and applying laser energy to the sacrificial layer to facilitate separation of the first substrate from the second substrate [P. 10, ¶ 3].
Arimoto teaches the sacrificial layer is formed by a composition comprising an alkali-soluble polymer, which is implicitly taught as a solvent for dispersing or dissolving the alkali-soluble polymer can be an aqueous alkaline solution [P. 10, ¶ 9-10], wherein the alkali-soluble polymer contains a divalent residue of a diamine having a carboxyl group [P. 4, ¶ 2], wherein the alkali-soluble polymer of the sacrificial layer can comprise a polyamideimide [P. 8, ¶ 4], and can have a polyamic acid catalyst [P. 8, ¶ 3].
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising washing the adhesive layer with an alkaline aqueous solution to remove the sacrificial layer remaining on a surface of the adhesive layer after the step of applying laser energy to the sacrificial layer.
With respect to claim 2, Arimoto teaches washing the adhesive layer with an alkaline aqueous solution to remove the sacrificial layer remaining on a surface of the adhesive layer [P. 10, ¶ 9 - Step 3B] after the step of applying laser energy to the sacrificial layer [P. 10, ¶ 2-4 - Step 3A].
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the divalent residue of the diamine having the carboxyl group comprises the following group:
PNG
media_image1.png
133
155
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
139
213
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image3.png
113
245
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein * indicates a connection point.
With respect to claim 4, it is understood by the Examiner that Arimoto teaches the divalent residue of the diamine having the carboxyl group comprises the following group:
PNG
media_image3.png
113
245
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, or MBAA: 5,5′-methylenebis (2-aminobenzoic acid) [P. 14, ¶ 9], wherein * would indicate a connection point.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimoto (JP2020050734A), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2, in view of Wang (US20220098456A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the alkaline aqueous solution is 3 to 5% by weight of an aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution or an aqueous alkali metal carbonate solution.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Arimoto teaches washing the adhesive layer with an alkaline aqueous solution [P. 10, ¶ 9-10], which can be tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) aqueous solution [P. 11, ¶ 3], to remove the sacrificial layer.
Arimoto is silent on the alkaline aqueous solution being 3 to 5% by weight of an aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution or an aqueous alkali metal carbonate solution.
However, the prior art of Wang teaches TMAH aqueous solution can be used in a concentration of 5 - 30 wt % for the removal of a temporary adhesive layer from the surface of a processed wafer, after a laser debonding step [0138].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Wang teaches the claim 3 element alkaline aqueous solution is 3 to 5% by weight of an aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution, as the Wang aqueous TMAH solution range of 5 – 30 wt% overlaps at an endpoint with the claimed range of 3 – 5 wt%. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the TMAH aqueous solution in a concentration of 5 - 30 wt %, taught by Wang, to replace the non-detailed tetramethylammonium hydroxide TMAH aqueous solution, taught by Arimoto, to predictably result in an aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution at a known concentration designed for the removal of a temporary bonding layer from a processed wafer.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimoto (JP2020050734A), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, as evidenced by Jeong (US20200062906A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the sacrificial layer has a thermal expansion coefficient of less than 50 ppm/℃.
With respect to claim 5, Arimoto is silent on the sacrificial layer having a thermal expansion coefficient (CTE) of less than 50 ppm/°C.
However, the prior art of Jeong teaches a sacrificial layer with a (CTE) of 0 to 20 ppm/°C. in the temperature range of 30 to 500°C [0027]. The Jeong sacrificial layer’s chemistry is similar to the teachings of Arimoto, as Jeong teaches the sacrificial layer is a polyimide-based solution [0017, 0027, 0081] comprising a carboxylic group [0044, 0081]. Jeong provides evidence that the sacrificial layer, and also the sacrificial layer taught by Arimoto, will have good solubility, transparency, and a low thermal expansion for its application as a sacrificial layer [0008, 0015].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the sacrificial layer taught by Jeong, which teaches a sacrificial layer with a (CTE) of 0 to 20 ppm/°C, provides evidence that the CTE taught by Arimoto would have similar properties and a closely matching CTE, based on their closely matching chemistries. Therefore, Arimoto would also have a sacrificial layer CTE of less than 50 ppm/°C, teaching the elements of instant claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant' s disclosure – Huang (US20140338963A1), [0009, 0010, 0074].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748