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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/441518 filed February 14, 2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 9, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the attracting pressure generator and transforming device in claim 1 and the measurer in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification indicates that the attracting pressure generator corresponds to a number of adjusting mechanisms each consisting of a suction pump and related valves and lines (pars. 123-125), and the transforming device corresponds to an attraction member (i.e. chuck surface), pressure variable space and a transformation adjuster which itself corresponds to a suction pump, booster pump and switching valve (pars. 97-98). The measurer corresponds to a capacitance sensor (par. 99).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
All of the limitations in the claims reciting what the controller does are deemed to be statements with regard to the intended use and are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. None of the “controller controls/generates/selects/sets/performs/releases/makes” statements impart any further structural requirements to any of the claims. This will also be addressed in the prior art rejections below.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2015/0357226).
Regarding claim 1: Liu et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus consisting of a wafer bonding system (100), having a lower wafer chuck (103) which is a holder that has an attraction surface (119), central region and annular region, the attraction surface (119) having a plurality of openings (117) provided in the central region as well as a number of outer zones separated along a circumferential direction which are connected to a vacuum pump (123) which is an attracting pressure generator which generates the attraction pressure in the openings (117) of the attraction surface (119), and a profile control layer (121) which is part of a transforming device which changes the shape of the central region of the chuck (103) relative to its outer edge (pars. 14-15, figures 1A, 1C and 2).
Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose a unified controller that controls the above features. However, Liu et al. does teach that the pumps receive feedback from an overlay control system (par. 45) and that all of the various pumps and supplies are controlled together to generate the proper suction and control profile (pars. 15, 17 and 23) such that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine all of the individual control units for these pumps and supplies into a unified controller which controls the overall system because Liu et al. shows that these systems already have to be interconnected (par. 45) and because integration of parts and automating an otherwise manual activity are not considered to be patentable advances (MPEP 2144.04).
Liu et al. teaches that the system (100) operates by attracting a wafer (303) by utilizing the vacuum pump (123) and thereafter the profile control layer (121) is operated to warp the vacuum distribution layer (115) of the chuck (103) (par. 28, figures 2-3). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. the sequence of events, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 2: Liu et al. teaches that the openings (117) are provided in a plurality of zones (figure 1C) and that regardless of the warping of the wafer (303) the vacuum pump (123) generates the attracting pressure in each of the zones (par. 15). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. which zones are supplied vacuum, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claims 3-4: Liu et al. teaches that the openings (117) are provided in a plurality of zones (figure 1C) and that regardless of the warping of the wafer (303) the vacuum pump (123) generates the attracting pressure in each of the zones (par. 15). Liu et al. further teaches that the warpage of the attraction surface (119) is based on that of the substrate and can be either concave or convex (pars. 24-25). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. which zones are supplied vacuum, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims. Further, the limitations in both claims 3 and 4 “when the substrate is concavely/convexly bent” are considered optional limitations, with the claimed intended use only occurring in cases where this situation is met, which never necessarily occurs.
Regarding claim 5: Liu et al. teaches that the openings (117) are provided in a plurality of symmetrical zones with the central region therebetween (figure 1C) such that the vacuum pump (123) generates pressure in these multiple symmetrical zones (par. 15). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. which zones are supplied vacuum, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 6: Liu et al. teaches that the openings (117) are provided in two separate outer regions outside of the central region, separated in a radial direction, the vacuum pump (123) generating pressure in all of these openings (117) (par. 15, figure 1C). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. which zones are supplied vacuum, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 8: Liu et al. teaches that the control layer (121) can be set to any number of different transformation degrees based on the exact shape of the wafer (303) itself (pars. 24-27). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. how the transformation is determined, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claims 9-10: Liu et al. teaches that the vacuum pump (123) generates negative pressure in all of the openings (117) (par. 15, figure 1C). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. which zones are supplied vacuum, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 11: Liu et al. discloses an upper wafer chuck (101) which is disposed above the lower chuck (103) which holds another wafer (301), where the system performs bonding between the two wafers (301, 303) after the transformation of the attraction surface (119) (par. 40-42, figures 2-5, 7).
Regarding claim 12: Liu et al. teaches that the openings (117) are provided in a plurality of zones (figure 1C) and that regardless of the warping of the wafer (303) the vacuum pump (123) generates the attracting pressure in each of the zones (par. 15). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. which zones are supplied vacuum, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 13: Liu et al. discloses that after bonding the bonded wafers (601) are released by the openings (117) being supplied atmospheric pressure by way of deactivating the vacuum pump (123), all while the transformation of the attraction surface (119) is maintained, thus allowing the bonded wafers (601) to be removed from the chuck (103) (pars. 43-44, figure 6). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. the order in which the pumps/supplies are deactivated, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Regarding claim 14: Liu et al. teaches that the profile generated by the profile control layer (121) is controlled based on the natural warpage of the wafers such that the determination on whether to transform the attraction surface (119)- let alone the degree of transformation- must be based on that natural warpage (par. 48). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. what determinations are made and how, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-14 above and further in view of Zinner et al. (US 2020/0027768).
Regarding claim 7: Liu et al. discloses that the profile control of the wafers is done due to the existing natural warpage of the wafers in order to minimize misalignment during bonding (par. 48) such that the natural warpage of the wafers is meant to be know and understood. Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose any sort of measurer or measuring element which measures this warpage. However, Zinner et al. discloses a similar wafer bonding system having sensors which help monitor the exact curvature of the substrates (par. 151). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sensors like that of Zinner et al. to monitor the curvature of the substrates because Zinner et al. teaches that this allows the desired curvature profile generated by the device to be adjusted automatically in a closed feedback loop in case it needs correcting throughout the process (par. 151, 257).
Liu et al. teaches that the vacuum pump (123) generates negative pressure in all of the openings (117) (par. 15, figure 1C). Regardless, as discussed above none of the limitations regarding how the controller operates, i.e. which zones are supplied vacuum, impart any additional patentable weight to these apparatus claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Omori et al. (US 2018/0047699) discloses a similar bonding apparatus with multiple attraction zones (figure 11) and a deformable stage (figure 22). Sugakawa et al. (2021/0272836) also discloses a similar bonding apparatus with multiple suction zones (figure 5) and a pressure-variable space (243) which is a transformation space (figures 4, 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/6/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights