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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2016/0023436 A1) in view of Holsteyns et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2021/0098299 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a temporary wafer bonding process comprising the steps of:
providing a wafer (¶ 0021: substrate 12) for back processing (¶ 0033: backside processing) by laminating a plain protective film (¶ 0021: layer 20) on a front surface of the wafer (fig. 1a: 20 laminated on front surface 14);
providing a rigid carrier (¶ 0024: second substrate 24);
bonding the rigid carrier to the plain protective film by an intermediate of a bonding material layer (¶ 0031 & fig. 1b: 24 bonded to 20 by intermediate material layer 32);
processing a back surface of the wafer (¶ 0033: backside surface 16 processed); and
separating the rigid carrier and the plain protective film from the wafer (¶ 0035: 24 and 20 separated from 12).
Liu does not teach wherein providing the wafer comprises;
providing a cavity in the front surface of the wafer; and
establishing a fluid connection via the cavity;
Holsteyns teaches a method including laminating a plain protective film (¶ 0052: 154) on the front surface of a wafer (¶ 0052 & fig. 6a: 154 laminated on front surface of wafer 102) wherein providing the wafer includes:
providing the front surface of the wafer with a cavity (¶ 0049 & fig. 6A: front surface of 102 includes trenches 140a-140c); and
establishing a fluid connection via the cavity (¶ 0048: trenches 140 formed by dry or wet etching, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “establishing a fluid connection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the method of Liu with the cavity of Holsteyns, as a means to facilitate dicing the semiconductor substrate into a plurality of dies, enhancing manufacturing efficiency.
Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson' s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP § 2143.02. In the instant case, the cavities of Holsteyns could be combined with the protective layer application of Liu, with no change to their respective functions.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1 wherein the step of separating the rigid carrier and the plain protective film from the wafer comprises:
separating the rigid carrier from the plain protective film (Liu, ¶ 0035: 24 separated from 12); and
followed by removing the plain protective film from the front surface of the wafer (Liu, ¶ 0035: remaining portion of 20 removed from 12).
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, comprising a step of separating the rigid carrier and the plain protective film from the wafer (¶ 0035: 24 and 20 separated from 12).
Liu in view of Holsteyns as applied to claim 1 above does not teach wherein the step of separating the rigid carrier and the plain protective film from the wafer comprises wet etching the plain protective film.
However, Holsteyns does teach a method including separating a rigid carrier (¶ 0051: 158) and a plain protective film (¶ 0052: 154) from a wafer (¶ 0040: 102) by a wet etch (¶ 0061 & fig. 11: 158/154 removed from 102 by a wet etch process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the separation process of Liu in view of Holsteyns with a wet etch, as a means to remove a plurality of back-side-processed wafer portions into a plurality of die, enhancing manufacturing efficiency.
Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson' s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP § 2143.02. In the instant case, the wet etch process of Holsteyns could be combined with the protective layer removal of Liu and Holsteyns, with no change to their respective functions.
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the wafer is a semiconductor substrate (Liu, ¶ 0020), optionally comprising CMOS circuitry (optional feature, not given patentable weight).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the rigid carrier is transparent (Liu, ¶ 0024: 24 comprises clear glass).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the rigid carrier is a glass carrier (Liu, ¶ 0024: 24 comprises glass).
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the cavity extends to the back surface (Holsteyns, ¶ 0048 & fig. 4B: 140 extends to back surface portion 106B), before the step of laminating the plain protective film on the front surface of the wafer (Holsteyns, figs. 4A-4B, 6A-6B: 140 extends to 106B before laminating 156, equivalent to 20 of Liu).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 8, wherein the cavity has an aspect ratio of at least 1 (Holsteyns, fig. 4A among others: 140a-140c have height dimension greater than width dimension, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an aspect ratio of at least 1”).
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the plain protective film either is glue-free (Liu, ¶ 0039) or comprises a glue layer thinner than 5nm on the surface of the plain protective film that will contact the front surface of the wafer during the step of laminating the plain protective film on the front surface of the wafer.
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the bonding material layer comprises photosensitive material (Liu, ¶ 0041: release layer is photosensitive).
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 13, wherein the step of separating the rigid carrier and the plain protective film from the wafer comprises a step of exposing the wafer to UV light (Liu, ¶ 0034: excimer lasers at 248 nm, 308 nm, and 355 nm dissolve layer 32).
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the cavity extends from the front surface to the back surface (Holstyens, fig. 4B: 140 extends to 106B, which is a back surface portion of 100).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Holsteyns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2022/0208650 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the step of processing a back surface of the wafer comprises a heating step of the back surface (Liu, ¶ 0033: backside processing includes annealing). Liu in view of Holsteyns further teaches the protective film is utilized to form backside dielectric layers, and configured to survive processing temperatures above 200 °C (Liu, ¶ 0033).
Liu in view of Holsteyns does not explicitly teach the heating step includes temperatures above 150 °C.
Gao teaches a method including form backside dielectric layers at temperatures above 150 °C (¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the back surface processing step of Liu in view of Holsteyns to comprise a heating step with temperatures above 150 °C, as a means to improve backside dielectric layer quality (Gao, ¶ 0039).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Holsteyns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2018/0358258 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the wafer comprises a stack of layers (Liu, ¶ 0020: 12 comprises a plurality of layers),
Liu in view of Holsteyns does not teach wherein at least one of the layers is formed by wafer bonding.
Lee teaches a wafer (¶ 0015: 105) comprising a stack of layers (¶ 0015: 105a/105b/105c), wherein at least one of the layers is formed by wafer bonding (¶ 0002: at least an active layer portion formed on a handle layer portion by wafer bonding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the wafer of Liu in view of Holsteyns by wafer bonding, as a means to achieve thinner and precise device layer and ensure the requirement of thickness uniformity and low defect density (Lee, ¶ 0002).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Holsteyns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuchiyama et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2013/0244402 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1 wherein the plain protective film comprises a polymer (Liu, ¶ 0039: 20 comprises a polymer).
Liu in view of Holsteyns does not teach wherein the polymer has a glass transition temperature below 100 °C.
Tsuchiyama teaches an adhesive polymer film (¶ 0027: adhesive layer comprising polymer) with a glass transition temperature below 100 °C (¶ 0028: Tg preferably below 50 °C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the polymer of Liu in view of Holsteyns with a glass transition temperature below 100 °C, as a means to optimize adhesive force of the polymer film to a support (Tsuchiyama, ¶¶ 0028-0028).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Holsteyns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2014/0084491 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 13, including a step of laminating the plain protective film on the front surface of the wafer (fig. 1a).
Liu in view of Holsteyns does not teach wherein the step of laminating the plain protective film on the front surface of the wafer is performed at a temperature above 85 °C and a pressure above 103 kPa.
Takahashi teaches a method including a step of laminating an adhesive film (¶ 0029: 1) on a substrate (fig. 3A: 1 laminated on substrate 21), the laminating performed at a temperature above 80 °C and a pressure of above 103 kPa (¶ 0029: 1 laminated on 21 at a temperature above 80 °C and a pressure of 0.5 MPa or higher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the laminating process of Liu in view of Holsteyns, including temperature and pressure, as a means to allow successful lamination without forming voids (Takahashi, ¶ 0029).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the claimed ranges of “a temperature above 85 °C and a pressure above 103 kPa” lie inside the ranges disclosed by Takahashi (temperature above 80 °C and pressure above 0.5 MPa).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Holsteyns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2010/0006959 A1).
Regarding claims 17-18, Liu in view of Holsteyns teaches the process according to claim 1, comprising a cavity (Holstyens, 140).
Liu in view of Holsteyns fails to teach wherein the cavity fluidly couples to a second cavity.
Kim teaches a wafer (100, similar to that of Liu and/or Holstyens) comprising;
a cavity (¶ 0083: 17A) provided in a front surface of the wafer (fig. 22I: 17A provided in front surface of second substrate 100); and
a fluid connection via the cavity (¶ 0084: 17A compatible with a wet etch process, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “fluid connection”),
wherein the cavity fluidly couples to a second cavity (fig. 22I among others: 17A fluidly coupled to cavity 18), wherein the second cavity is a horizontal cavity (fig. 22I: 18 is horizontally arranged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the method of Liu in view of Holstyens with the horizontal cavity of Kim, as a means to provide a moving part suitable for use in MEMS devices while minimizing the number of manufacturing steps (Kim, ¶¶ 0092-0095).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 lines 1-4, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to the formal objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly the objections to claims 4 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Furthermore, regarding the Applicant’s argument stating
“In particular, Holsteyns is silent regarding the trenches specific formation of a cavity in the front surface of the wafer much less that the cavity once formed establishes a fluid connection as recited by the amended claims”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the claims merely limit the cavities to be in a front surface of a wafer, and establish “a fluid connection”. Holstyens teaches cavities in a front surface of a wafer, the cavities demonstrating fluidic connectivity, and therefore meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed subject matter. See the rejections above for complete details.
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 BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5411. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
