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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8, 16-20, in the reply filed on May 29, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 9-15, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 16-17, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0008350 (hereinafter referred to as Cutler) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0411906 (hereinafter referred to as Gerasopoulos).
Cutler, in [0047], [0073]-[0079], discloses processing a wafer, the process including depositing a coating (actuator film ) that comprise the polymer film of thiolene, and has an initial bow, the thiolene film formed on the wafer surface is then subjected to an activation , resulting in the modifying of the bow of the wafer (second curvature). Cutler, in [0038], discloses that the depositing of the actuator film includes the use of a activation (use of radiation, photoactivated, see [0047]), claimed first radiation, includes visible light) and will result in the modified wafer shape (first curvature). Cutler, in [0036]-[0039], discloses that the actuator film formed on the wafer is subjected to a patterned exposure to light (claimed second actinic radiation, includes UV radiation) resulting in a stress that causes to further modify the bow of the wafer. Cutler, in [0037], discloses that the exposure can be a direct-write exposure (direct-write lithography) (claims 1, 7, 16-17). Cutler, in [0045], discloses that the actuator film is coated onto the wafer by a spin-on deposition and the composition deposited includes solvents (claim 2, 20). Cutler, in figure 1B, [0034], discloses the wafer (that is not coated with an actuator material) with a bow that is severe and greater than the first curvature (see [0038]) (claim 3). Cutler, in [0037], discloses that the patterned exposure on the actuator film coated on the wafer results in mitigation of bow from wafer stress i.e., the curvature (second curvature) of the wafer after the patterned exposure is less than the first curvature (claim 4).
The difference between the claims and Cutler is that Cutler does not disclose the depositing of the actuator material to form the thiolene is by the claimed process of depositing two monomers and polymerizing the monomers in the claimed manner and as recited in claims 5-6. Cutler does not disclose the claimed solvent (claim 20).
Gerasopoulos in [0032], and [0102], discloses that the thiolene is deposited by UV initiation of thiols and olefins (alkynes) that is the monomers are polymerized by exposure to UV to form thiolene, wherein the solvent includes alkyl monomethyl ether carbonate solvents (includes PGMEA). Gerasopoulos, in [0032], and [0038], discloses that the reaction (for forming the thiolene) includes reactions between thiols and thioesters (mercapto propionate).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Cutler by using the polymerization of the claimed monomers as taught by Gerasopoulos because Cutler teaches the use of thiolene polymer as the actuator film (film to be activated to reduce the bow of the wafer) and does not limit the formation process of thiolene and Gerasopoulos in [0032], discloses that the UV mediation of the thiol and alkynes results in the three-dimensional networks of thiolene wherein the properties of the network in the thiolene can be tuned by the structure, functionality and stoichiometry of the two monomers.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0008350 (hereinafter referred to as Cutler) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0411906 (hereinafter referred to as Gerasopoulos) as applied to claims 1-7, 16-17, and 20, above, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0336226 (hereinafter referred to as Cutler ‘226).
Cutler in view of Gerasopoulos is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and Cutler in view of Gerasopoulos is that Cutler in view of Gerasopoulos does not disclose that actuator film comprising the polymer includes a photo base as recited in claim 8.
Cutler ‘226, in [0007], [0035] discloses the deposition of the bow mitigation stress film that comprises a polymer on the wafer that has a bow, and Cutler ‘226, in [0024], and [0041], discloses the use of activation multiple times using actinic radiation so as mitigate the undesirable bow, and Cutler ‘226, in [0025], discloses the use of any photo-initiating chemistry in the film composition used as the stress mitigating film, and Cutler ‘226, in [0039], and [0042], discloses that the stress-modification agent used in the film composition includes photo generating bases that are activated during activation using actinic radiation and catalyzes rearrangement in the film composition enabling stress mitigation.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Cutler in view of Gerasopoulos by employing the photo-initiating component in the actuator film (stress mitigating film) as taught by Cutler ‘226 because Cutler, in [0047], discloses the use of photo-activators in the composition of the actuator film and does not prohibit the use of photo activators such photobases, and Cutler ‘226, in [0042], discloses that using photoactive compounds in the film material enables the generation of agents upon exposure to actinic radiation that causes stress mitigation in the wafer by crosslinking and forming of modified bonds in the film thereby modifying the bow of the wafer.
Claim(s) 18-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0008350 (hereinafter referred to as Cutler) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0411906 (hereinafter referred to as Gerasopoulos) as applied to claims 1-7, 16-17, and 20, above, and further in view U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0018122 (hereinafter referred to as Woods).
Cutler in view of Gerasopoulos is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and Cutler in view of Gerasopoulos is that Cutler in view of Gerasopoulos does not disclose the alkyne recited in claim 18 or the thiol recited in claim 19.
Woods, in [0118], teaches curable composition that comprise thiolene and in [0119]-[0120], discloses the formation of the thiolene by the polymerization between the ethylenically unsaturated reactant and the thiol functional material. Woods discloses that the alkynes include ethenyl benzene ([0121], include the aromatic core) and the thiol functional material includes trifunctional groups and include benzenethiols ([0122]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Cutler in view Gerasopoulos by employing the thiol and alkyne taught by Woods in the forming of the curable actuator film because Cutler teaches the use of thiolene polymer as the stress modifying actuator film composition and Gerasopoulos teaches the formation of the thiolene by the polymerization via UV polymerization and does not limit the monomeric component to form the thiolene, and Woods, in [0118] and [0120] discloses that using the claimed unsaturated group (alkyne) that is radically polymerizable and using thiol functional material that have at least one thiol group (includes three) enables the formation of a curable composition that have desirable properties including good adhesion to surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 June 27, 2026.
Prosecution Insights