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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 19-29, 33-44 remain pending in the application, with claims 35-44 remaining withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 19-29 & 33-34 remain rejected.
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: driver and detector in claim 19.
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. The driver is interpreted as a unit which raises and lowers an adjacent base (e.g. stage) by supplying load 338 (instant specification [0144]), and the detector is interpreted as a microphone 390 or a vibration detection unit 392 (instant specification [0148 & 0152]).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19-29, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanida (U.S PG Pub 20120190138A1), Kinouchi (U.S PG Pub 20120031557A1), Ashizawa (U.S Patent 5892316A), and Miekle (U.S Patent 5439551).
Regarding claim 19, Tanida drawn also to the art of bonding two substrates (Abstract), discloses a substrate bonding apparatus (Figure 5) and discloses a first (3) and second holder (4) which hold the substrates (2 & 6) [0014-0016 & 0022-0024], and a driver (variable mechanism 5) that can move one of the two holders [0030-0031]. Tanida also discloses a detector (unit 8) which detects a relative interval between an upper surface and lower surface of the first substrate and second substrate [0045 & 0043 & 0020]. However, Tanida has not explicitly disclosed a detector configured to detect vibration generated in bonding the substrates. Kinouchi, however, discloses the above limitation.
Kinouchi, drawn also to the art of bonding multiple substrates (Abstract), discloses a detecting unit (#19 Figure 1; [0074]) that measures mechanical force (i.e. vibration) received from at least one of the substrates and a change in mechanical force and whether it has reached a predetermined load [0074].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Tanida, with a load cell sensor to the pressing portion to prevent damage to the substrates during the bonding process [0085].
In the event the applicant disagrees with the above explanation as pertaining to the detector configured to detect vibrations, it is further known in the art from Ashizawa for a vibration actuator to have vibration detectors.
Ashizawa, drawn also to the art of vibration actuators for providing vibration and driving force (Abstract), discloses a vibration actuator with vibration generator and detectors (Columns 11-12, lines 55-67 & 1-15). Ashizawa also discloses the vibration detectors to be piezoelectric elements (Column 14, lines 55-62). Ashizawa also discloses that the vibration actuator is able to the state of vibrations (Column 22, lines 50-56).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Tanida to have arrived at the instant invention, in order to be able to allow exact detection of the state of generated vibrations (Column 1, lines 8-20).
Tanida and Kinouchi have disclosed determining bonding based on a detection of mechanical force with a processing unit and detecting unit, and as such the limitation of detecting atmosphere expelled by contact between the first and second substrate would fall under such a scenario (see claim 19 rejection above). Atmosphere expelled by contact between the two substrates would constitute acoustic elastic waves, and as such an vibrations as a result of the bonding process, are by nature acoustic elastic waves, as they are displacing the air/gases in the vicinity, thus causing waves to travel out from the specific vicinity.
Further, in the process of bonding, there would necessarily be a deformation of one of the substrates, as the two substrates come into contact with each other, and additionally a collision sound would also constitute a detection of vibration, as mechanical force caused by contact between two substrates would emit a sound upon collision. Furthermore, the instant claim only requires one of the mentioned scenarios i.e. the manner in which the acoustic waves are generated, and the manner as such is also an intended use recitation of the apparatus (MPEP 2114 & 2115). Regardless, the apparatus as disclosed by Tanida as modified by Kinouchi and Ashizawa is capable of detecting vibration generated in the process of bonding two substrates and is capable of detecting acoustic waves generated by the process, as acoustic waves constitute vibrations, and thus the apparatus disclosed meets the limitation of all three scenarios of acoustic wave generation of the instant claim.
Regarding the limitation of the acoustic wave detector being lateral to the contact region in which the first and second substrate are in contact with each other, both Tanida and Kinouchi disclose the detector and detecting unit to be placed above the region of contact (i.e. bonding), thus, while this is not by definition lateral, it is noted that the detector and detecting unit of Tanida and Kinouchi is placed next to or in the vicinity of the bonding region, thus it would merely involve a rearrangement of parts for the detector and detecting unit to be placed lateral to the bonding region, and this is obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)).
In the event the applicant disagrees with the above rationale as pertaining to the positioning of the acoustic wave detector, it is further noted that Miekle discloses an acoustic wave detector lateral to the region of processing, as explained below.
Meikle, drawn also to the art of a substrate (semiconductor) processing method (Abstract), discloses a system (60) for acoustically monitoring mechanical or chemical mechanical polishing, and discloses that a microphone (acoustic wave detector) can be positioned as a detector next to the substrate holder (wafer carrier) and any sound/sonic waves emanating from the substrate/wafer can be picked up and detected by the microphone, and that a line (64) extends to an acoustic analyzer (66) which monitors sound and changes in sound from the processing of the substrate/wafer (Column 7, lines 44-53). Miekle discloses the acoustic wave detector being lateral to the substrate holder (see figure 6).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Tanida, Kinouchi, and Ashizawa, with the acoustical monitoring system being lateral to the region of processing, as disclosed by Meikle, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to improve methods of end point detection in substrate/wafer processing (Column 2, lines 11-15).
Regarding claims 20-21, the instant limitations are disclosed above (see claim 19 rejection above). Further the intended use of the apparatus does not limit the apparatus as long as the structure provided by the prior art is capable of meeting the intended use (MPEP 2114 & 2115).
Regarding claims 22-25, the instant limitations are disclosed above (see claim 19 rejection above). Further the intended use of the apparatus does not limit the apparatus as long as the structure provided by the prior art is capable of meeting the intended use (MPEP 2114 & 2115).
Regarding claims 26-27, the instant limitations are disclosed above (see claim 19 rejection above). Further the intended use of the apparatus does not limit the apparatus as long as the structure provided by the prior art is capable of meeting the intended use (MPEP 2114 & 2115).
Regarding claims 28-29, Tanida and Kinouchi have disclosed determining bonding based on a detection of mechanical force with a processing unit and detecting unit, and as such the limitation of acoustic impedance corresponding to a change in a contacting state would fall under such a scenario (see claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claims 33-34, Tanida and Kinouchi have disclosed determining bonding based on a detection of mechanical force with a processing unit/control unit and detecting unit, and as such the limitation of detecting a collision sound between the first and second substrate would fall under such a scenario (see claim 19 rejection above).
In the event the applicant disagrees with the above rationale, it is known in the art to use acoustical measures to detect changes in contacting states, as disclosed by Meikle.
Meikle, drawn also to the art of a substrate (semiconductor) processing method (Abstract), discloses a system (60) for acoustically monitoring mechanical or chemical mechanical polishing, and discloses that a microphone can be position as a detector next to the substrate holder (wafer carrier) and any sound/sonic waves emanating from the substrate/wafer can be picked up and detected by the microphone, and that a line (64) extends to an acoustic analyzer (66) which monitors sound and changes in sound from the processing of the substrate/wafer (Column 7, lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the apparatus of Tanida, Kinouchi, and Ashizawa, with the acoustical monitoring system of Meikle, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to improve methods of end point detection in substrate/wafer processing (Column 2, lines 11-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tanida, Kinouchi, Ashizawa, and Miekle.
Applicant argues that the claims should not be treated under 112(f) as the claims have sufficient structure.
The examiner disagrees and notes that as per MPEP 2181 – if applicant does not want to have the claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), applicant may: (1) present a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f); or (2) amend the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function). No such showing has been provided. The addition of the word acoustic to the limitation of the detector does not add sufficient structure to the placeholder term ‘detector’ in order to preclude it from interpretation under 112(f).
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose a detection unit to detect progress of bonding between substrates.
The examiner disagrees. Firstly, it is noted that the instant claims are drawn to an apparatus, they are not drawn to a method. Secondly, the instant claims do not recite any limitations pertaining to the progress of bonding of the substrates, thus whether the prior art discloses determining or detecting the progress of bonding between substrates is immaterial, as this subject matter is not claimed. Thirdly, even if the claims were to recite subject matter alluding to determining/detecting progress between substrates during bonding, the instant claims are all drawn to apparatus claims, and any such potential limitations would merely amount to intended use recitations of the apparatus (detector specifically). The intended use of an apparatus does not patentably limit the apparatus as long as the apparatus discloses the structure as claimed and the structure being capable of performing the intended use (MPEP 2114 & 2115). Finally, the apparatus as disclosed by Tanida, as modified by Kinouchi, Ashizawa, and Miekle, does disclose an apparatus that at the very least is capable of determining bonding progress between substrates. Kinouchi in [0074] discloses a detecting unit that determines bonding between the substrates based on whether mechanical force reaches a predetermined value [0074]. Thus, the detecting unit of Kinouchi determine the state of bonding between the substrates based on mechanical forces, i.e. vibrations/acoustic waves. Miekle also discloses a microphone to detect stages of processing of a wafer, which to an ordinarily skilled artisan would be obvious to use as a measure of also detecting bonding progress, as processing of substrates or wafers includes bonding of substrates/wafers. Tanida also discloses a detector (unit 8) which detects a relative interval between an upper surface and lower surface of the first substrate and second substrate [0045 & 0043 & 0020], and a relative interval between the upper and lower surface of the first and second substrate would be a changing variable as bonding progresses, thus detecting progress of bonding based on the changes.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746