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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al. (DE 1020050577994 A1).
Considering claim 1, Hansen discloses an apparatus for measuring wafer bonding strength, the apparatus comprising:
- holder configured to fix bonded wafers (Claim 11);
- a measuring unit configured to measure the wafer bonding strength of the bonded wafers, wherein the measuring unit comprises:
- a blade 3 configured to apply a force to a bonding interface 12 between the bonded wafers 1/2 from a contact side of the bonded wafers to part the bonded wafers (Figures 1-3; [0017-19]);
- a driver configured to provide the blade with a driving force (Figures 1-3; [0017-18]); and
- a sensor configured to measure the forces applied to the blade (Figure 5(a); [0018-19]).
Considering claim 13, Hansen discloses a method of measuring wafer bonding strength, the method comprising:
- applying forces to a blade making contact with a bonding interface between bonded wafers (Claim 1; Figures 1-3; [0017-19]); and
- measuring the forces applied to the blade to determine the wafer bonding strength (Claim 1; Figure 5(a); [0018-19]).
Considering claim 14, Hansen discloses that a maximum value among the forces applied to the blade when the bonding interface is parted is determined as the wafer bonding strength (Claim 3; Figure 5(a); [0019]).
Considering claim 15, Hansen discloses a method of driving a measurement apparatus of wafer bonding strength, the method comprising:
- fixing bonded wafers to a wafer stage (Claim 11); and
- driving a driver, which provides a blade with a driving force, to apply forces to the blade making contact with a bonding interface between the bonded wafers (Figures 1-3; [0017-19]); and
- measuring the forces applied to the blade to determine the wafer bonding strength (Claim 1; Figure 5(a); [0018-19]).
Considering claim 16, Hansen discloses that a maximum value among the forces applied to the blade when the bonding interface is parted is determined as the wafer bonding strength (Claim 3; Figure 5(a); [0019]).
Considering claim 18, Hansen discloses that measuring the forces comprises providing a same force to the blade in a measurement section from a contact of the blade with a contact side of the bonded wafers to a parting point for the bonded wafers (Claim 5; [0020]).
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (DE 1020050577994 A1) in view of Kishima et al. (US 6792812 B2).
Considering claim 2, Hansen discloses the presence of a force sensor, but the invention by Hansen fails to explicitly disclose that it is positioned between the blade and the driver to measure a compressive force.
However, Kishima teaches the use of a force sensor 12 that is positioned between the blade 7 and the driver 11 to measure a compressive force (Figures 1-2; Column 4, lines 29-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a force sensor positioned between the blade and the driver, as taught by Kishima, in the invention by Hansen. The motivation for doing so is to provide a measure of load exerted on the cutting blade, as explicitly taught by Kishima (Column 4, lines 45-46).
Considering claim 3, Hansen discloses the presence of a force sensor, but fails to explicitly disclose that it comprises a compressive load cell.
However, Kishima teaches the use of a compressive load cell 12 (Figures 1-2; Column 4, lines 29-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a compressive load cell, as taught by Kishima, in the invention by Hansen. The motivation for doing so is to provide a measure of load exerted on the cutting blade, as explicitly taught by Kishima (Column 4, lines 45-46).
Considering claim 4, Hansen discloses that the sensor continuously measures the forces applied to the blade in a measurement section extending from a contact of the blade with the contact side of the bonded wafers to a parting point for the bonded wafers (Figure 5(a); [0019]).
Considering claim 5, Hansen discloses that a maximum value among the forces applied to the blade is determined as the wafer bonding strength ([0019]).
Considering claim 7, Hansen discloses that the driver provides the blade with a force along a direction in a measurement section from a contact of the blade with the contact side of the bonded wafers to a parting point for the bonded wafers (Figures 1-2; [0017-19]).
Considering claim 8, Hansen discloses that the driver provides the blade with a same force in the measurement section ([0020]).
Considering claim 9, Hansen discloses that the driver comprises a linear driver, the linear driver comprises a body configured to generate the driving force for a linear motion and a moving member configured to transfer the driving force to the blade (Figures 1-2; [0017-18], linear arrow 4, feed drive providing defined and automatic movement), but fails to explicitly disclose that the sensor is positioned between the moving member and the blade.
However, Kishima teaches the use of a force sensor 12 that is positioned between the blade 7 and the moving member 10 of a driver 11 to measure a compressive force (Figures 1-2; Column 4, lines 29-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a force sensor positioned between the blade and the moving member of a driver, as taught by Kishima, in the invention by Hansen. The motivation for doing so is to provide a measure of load exerted on the cutting blade, as explicitly taught by Kishima (Column 4, lines 45-46).
Considering claim 17, Hansen discloses the presence of a force sensor, but the invention by Hansen fails to explicitly disclose measuring a compressive force by a sensor between the driver and the blade.
However, Kishima teaches the use of a force sensor 12 that is positioned between the blade 7 and the driver 11 to measure a compressive force (Figures 1-2; Column 4, lines 29-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize measuring a compressive force by a force sensor positioned between the blade and the driver, as taught by Kishima, in the invention by Hansen. The motivation for doing so is to provide a measure of load exerted on the cutting blade, as explicitly taught by Kishima (Column 4, lines 45-46).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (DE 1020050577994 A1) in view of Kishima et al. (US 6792812 B2), as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Allington et al. (WO 2016/081391 A1).
Considering claim 6, Hansen notes that the bonding strength is determined based on the maximum force applied to the blade as measured by the sensor ([0019]), but the invention by Hansen, as modified by Kishima, fails to explicitly disclose an analyzer configured to determine the wafer bonding strength from the forces applied to the blade measured by the sensor.
However, Allington teaches the use of an analyzer 143 that is configured to determine the wafer bonding strength from the applied forces measured by the sensor ([0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an analyzer that determines the wafer bonding strength based on measured applied forces to the blade, as taught by Allington, in the invention by Hansen, as modified by Kishima. The motivation for doing so is to provide an automated numerical indication of the result that does not solely rely on a graphical plot, which could increase the accuracy across operators or observers.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (DE 1020050577994 A1) in view of Nobuyuki et al. (JP 2006303087 A).
Considering claim 10, Hansen discloses a holder for fixing the bonded substrates (Claim 11) and the measuring unit, and while it would seem apparent that these elements were linked together by some generic structure, the invention by Hansen fails to explicitly disclose a support frame configured to fix together the wafer fixer and the measuring unit.
However, Nobuyuki teaches the use of a support frame 4 configured to fix together a wafer fixer 10 and a separate unit 15 (Figures 3-5; [0009]; [0013-14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a support frame that fixes together the measuring unit of Hansen and the wafer fixer of Nobuyuki, as taught by Nobuyuki. The motivation for doing so is to maintain a positional relationship between the fixer and measuring units, as would be understood in the art.
Considering claim 11, Hansen discloses a holder for fixing the bonded substates, but fails to explicitly disclose a stage configured to receive the bonded wafers, and the stage is configured to support the bonded wafers.
However, Nobuyuki discloses a stage 1 configured to receive the bonded wafers 11/12, and the stage is configured to support the bonded wafers (Figures 3-5; [0009]; [0013-14]; [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wafer fixer having a stage supporting the bonded wafers, as taught by Nobuyuki, in the invention by Hansen. The motivation for doing so is to provide an immovable wafer pair, whereby an accurate measure of applied force and blade displacement can be detected, as is understood in the art.
Considering claim 12, Hansen discloses a holder for fixing the bonded substrates, but fails to explicitly disclose a fixing member configured to fix a planar position of the bonded wafers on the stage.
However, Nobuyuki discloses a fixing member 2 configured to fix a planar position of the bonded wafers on the stage 1 (Figures 1-5; [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wafer fixer having a fixing member fixing the planar position of the bonded wafers, as taught by Nobuyuki, in the invention by Hansen. The motivation for doing so is to provide an immovable wafer pair, whereby an accurate measure of applied force and blade displacement can be detected, as is understood in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (DE 1020050577994 A1) in view of Allington et al. (WO 2016/081391 A1).
Considering claim 19, Hansen notes that the bonding strength is determined based on the maximum force applied to the blade as measured by the sensor ([0019]) and recording the forces applied to the blade (Figure 5(a)), but fails to explicitly disclose recording the forces applied to the blade in an analyzer and determining by the analyzer the wafer bonding strength from the forces applied to the blade.
However, Allington teaches the use of an analyzer 143 that is configured to determine the wafer bonding strength from a peak in applied forces measured by the sensor, which must retain knowledge of values in order to determine a peak ([0087]; [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an analyzer that determines the wafer bonding strength based on measured applied forces to the blade, as taught by Allington, in the invention by Hansen. The motivation for doing so is to provide an automated numerical indication of the result that does not solely rely on a graphical plot, which could increase the accuracy across operators or observers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2004/072585 A2 discloses a bonded wafer holder attached to a support structure with a force applying blade that is adjustable in an X and Z direction so as to line up with a bond interface.
US 9914233 B2 discloses a support structure having a wafer holder and a linear force applying blade.
US 9724906 B2 discloses a linear force applying blade having a load cell therewith that detects a bond interface, but does not use the blade force measurement during breaking of the bond of the bonded wafers having the interface.
CN 114252017 A discloses a bonded wafer on a stage, a linear force applying blade positioned relative to an interface within the bonded wafer pair, the blade moving with constant speed and variable applied force until it reaches a prescribed depth within the bonded wafer pair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 September 24, 2025