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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because the examination of all the inventions is considered a serious burden since each invention contains features that make them distinct and the elected and non-elected inventions are separately classified and the claims 18-21 are drawn to apparatus that are not examined by the same department/art unit that examines semiconductor device and methods. Therefore, a complete and independent examination would be required for each of the disclosed inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract and title are consistent with the requirements set forth in the MPEP 608.01(b) and 606, respectively.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanida et al. US PGPub. 2011/0217795. Regarding claim 16, Tanida teaches a method of bonding inspection (fig. 1), the method comprising: providing a bonded structure (2+3, fig. 1) that comprises a first semiconductor structure (2, fig. 1) [0017] and a second semiconductor structure (3, fig. 1) [0017] bonded to each other via a bonding interface (9, fig. 1) [0020]; irradiating the bonded structure (2+3) with X-rays(10, fig. 1) [0027] configured to penetrate through the bonded structure (2+3); and generating an X-ray image [0039] or an X-ray measurement signal of the bonding interface (9) via at least one mechanism selected from the group consisting of scintillation, direct imaging of X-rays [0039], X-ray absorption imaging, X-ray phase contrast imaging, X-ray interferometric fringe difference imaging, small angle scatter dark field imaging, X-ray diffraction, X-ray absorption, small angle X-ray scatter (SAXS), wide angle X-ray scatter (WAXS), near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure analysis (NEXAFS), X-ray near edge absorption spectroscopy (XANES), total external reflectance X-ray fluorescence (TXRF), X-ray K-edge subtraction, X-ray standing wave analysis, and X-ray reflectivity (Tanida et al., fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Tanida teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: performing defect analysis, with the X-ray image (10, fig. 1, [0039]) or the X-ray measurement signal of the bonding interface, of at least one interface defect selected from the group consisting of a void (entrainment void, [0051]), a gap (6, fig. 1), delamination, foreign material, a crack, aberrant copper pad size, a missing pad, and misalignment (Tanida aet al., fig. 1, [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious a method of hybrid bonding comprising “measuring relative positions of the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface at the first distance via an X-ray probe; bringing the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface closer to a second distance that is smaller than the first distance; measuring the relative positions of the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface at the second distance via the X-ray probe; adjusting relative positions of the first semiconductor structure and the second semiconductor structure based on X-ray images of the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface” as recited in claim 1. Claims 2-15 are also allowed for further limiting and depending upon allowed claim 1. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Woo US PGPub. 2013/0302622 (fig. 1) teaches a hybrid bonding method using x-ray diffraction to inspect the bond. Tanida et al. US PGPub. 2012/0190138 (fig. 1) teaches a hybrid bonding process using x-ray to measure a gap between two substrates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NDUKA E OJEH whose telephone number is (571)270-0291. 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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/NDUKA E OJEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights