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
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.
Claim(s) 24-29 and 35-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kito et al. US 2014/0072774 and Akita et al.US 2015/0276388.
PNG
media_image1.png
853
1372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 24, Kito teaches a method for manufacturing a stack (fig13 and 24), the method comprising:
obtaining first information about deformation of a first substrate (magnification ratio related to substrate flatness in S103 and S202 of one substrate 121, fig13, 24, and 45, [132, 166]), the deformation being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of the first substrate (magnification ratio related to substrate flatness globally or locally, fig14-17 and 25-28, [5, 141]);
outputting the first information to a controlling unit (112, fig1, [74]), wherein the controlling unit is configured to select a second substrate to be bonded to the first substrate (another substrate 121 to be bonded, fig13 and 24, [133, 157, 167]), based on the first information (magnification ratio of one substrate, fig45-47, [133, 157]) and second information about deformation of a plurality of substrates other than the first substrate (table of magnification ratio of another substrate, fig45-47, [157]), the deformation of the plurality of substrates being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of each of the plurality of substrates (stress in substrate during process related to different global or local flatness, fig14-17, [5, 141]); and
bonding the first substrate and the second substrate so as to manufacture a stack where the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded to each other (fig14-17 and 45-17).
Kito does not explicitly show how to obtain the magnification ratio and relation between magnification ratio and information about the deformation.
Akita teaches measuring curvature of a wafer during fabrication process (fig1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kito with the teaching of Akita to add in a curvature measuring data collected during device fabrication process before bonding process. The motivation to do so is to preserve product quality during fabrication, increase accuracy of curvature measurement used in the following bonding process (Akita, [4, 80]) and correct any misalignment related to warpage formed during process (Kito, [157]).
Re claim 25, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein a bonding condition for bonding the first substrate and the second substrate includes a condition that an amount of misalignment between the first substrate and the second substrate in the stack is equal to or less than a threshold (Kito, S103/S202, fig13 and 24).
Re claim 26, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 25, wherein the bonding condition includes a correction amount to correct the misalignment (Kito, S107-S109/S204-S206, fig13 and 24).
Re claim 27, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 26, wherein the bonding condition includes a deformation amount to change a shape of at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate (Kito, fig14-17 and 25-28).
Re claim 28, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim25, wherein the bonding condition includes a condition that (i) an amount of misalignment between the first substrate and the second substrate in the stack (Kito, S103/S202, fig13 and 24) or (ii) a difference between the amount of the misalignment and a threshold (Kito, S103/S202, fig13 and 24) is within a magnitude that is correctable by a correcting unit (Kito, 180/220, fig12 and 22) configured to correct the misalignment between the first substrate and the second substrate.
Re claim 29, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, further comprising at least one of: estimating, based on the first information and the second information (Kito, S103/S202, fig13 and 24), an amount of distortion occurring in the first substrate of the stack or calculating, based on the first information and the second information, an amount of misalignment between the first substrate and the second substrate in the stack (Kito, S103 S202, fig13 and 24).
Re claim 35, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, further comprising: measuring a shape of the first substrate so as to obtain the first information (warpage info collected during process as in Akita used for the magnification ratio data in Kito).
Re claim 36, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 35, wherein the first information includes information indicating at least one of a warpage magnitude, a warpage direction, a deflection magnitude, or a deflection direction of the first substrate (warpage info collected during process as in Akita used for the magnification ratio data in Kito).
Re claim 37, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 35, wherein the first information includes information about global curving obtained from displacements at a plurality of positions in the first substrate relative to a center of the first substrate (warpage info collected during process as in Akita used for the magnification ratio data in Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 38, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the first information is estimated based on a manufacturing process of the first substrate (warpage info collected during process as in Akita used for the magnification ratio data in Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 39, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 38, wherein the first information includes at least one of information indicating a manufacturing process of the first substrate, information indicating a stress distribution in the first substrate, or information indicating a specification of a structural body fabricated on the first substrate (stress related warpage info collected during process as in Akita used for the magnification ratio data in Kito for global fig13-17 and local fig24-28).
Re claim 40, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the first information is obtained by an apparatus other than an apparatus to manufacture the stack (warpage info collected during process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data in bonding process of Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 41, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein obtaining the first information is performed before measuring positions of the first substrate and the second substrate by an apparatus for manufacturing the stack (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data in bonding process of Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 42, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein obtaining the first information is performed before importing the first substrate and the second substrate into an apparatus for manufacturing the stack (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data in bonding process of Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 43, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 25,wherein the bonding condition includes a control condition for an apparatus for bonding the first substrate and the second substrate (Kito, fig1, 13, 24 and 45-47).
Re claim 44, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 43, wherein the control condition includes a correction condition to correct an amount of misalignment between the first substrate and the second substrate, the misalignment occurring while a contact region created between the first substrate and the second substrate is expanding (Kito, fig45-47).
Re claim 45, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the first information is measured by an exposure apparatus (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data in bonding process of Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 46, Kito teaches an apparatus (fig1) comprising:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain first information about deformation of a first substrate (magnification ratio related to substrate flatness in S103 and S202 of one substrate 121, fig13, 24, and 45, [132, 166]), the deformation being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of the first substrate (magnification ratio related to substrate flatness globally or locally, fig14-17 and 25-28, [5, 141]), and to output the first information to a controlling unit (112, fig1, [74]),
wherein the controlling unit is configured to select a second substrate to be bonded to the first substrate (another substrate 121 to be bonded, fig13 and 24, [133, 157, 167]), based on the first information and second information about deformation of a plurality of substrates other than the first substrate (table of magnification ratio of both substrates, [157]), the deformation of the plurality of substrates being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of each of the plurality of substrates (stress in substrate during process related to different globally or locally flatness, fig14-17, [5, 141]).
Kito does not explicitly show how to obtain the magnification ratio and relation between magnification ratio and information about the deformation.
Akita teaches measuring curvature of a wafer during fabrication process (fig1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kito with the teaching of Akita to add in a curvature measuring data collected during device fabrication process before bonding process. The motivation to do so is to preserve product quality during fabrication, increase accuracy of curvature measurement used in the following bonding process (Akita, [4, 80]) and correct any misalignment related to warpage formed during process (Kito, [157]).
Re claim 47, Kito modified above teaches the apparatus according to claim 46, further comprising: a first stage configured to hold the first substrate (Kito, 250, fig4, [91]); and a second stage configured to hold the second substrate (Kito, 240, fig4, [91]), wherein a bonding condition for bonding the first substrate with the second substrate includes a control condition for the first stage and the second stage (Kito, fig13 and 24).
Re claim 48, Kito modified above teaches the apparatus according to claim 47, wherein the control condition includes a correction condition to correct an amount of misalignment between the first substrate and the second substrate (Kito, fig14-17 for global correction, 25-28 for local correction and 45-47), the misalignment occurring while a contact region created between the first substrate and the second substrate is expanding (misalignment between two substrates will occur during bonding if bonded as in fig45 without the correction steps as in fig46 and 47).
Re claim 49, Kito modified above teaches the apparatus according to claim 46, wherein the first information is measured by an exposure apparatus (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data in bonding process of Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 50, Kito modified above teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the first information is measured by observing a surface of the first substrate (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data).
Re claim 51, Kito modified above teaches the apparatus according to claim 46, wherein the first information is measured by observing a surface of the first substrate (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data).
Re claim 52, Kito teaches a processing method (fig13-17 and 24-28) comprising:
obtaining first information about deformation of a first substrate (magnification ratio related to substrate flatness in S103 and S202 of one substrate 121, fig13, 24, and 45, [132, 166]), the deformation being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of the first substrate (magnification ratio related to substrate flatness globally or locally, fig14-17 and 25-28, [5, 141]); and
outputting the first information to a controlling unit (112, fig1, [74]),
wherein the controlling unit is configured to select a second substrate to be bonded to the first substrate (another substrate 121 to be bonded, fig13 and 24, [133, 157, 167]), based on the first information and second information about deformation of a plurality of substrates other than the first substrate (table of magnification ratio of both substrates, [157]), the deformation of the plurality of substrates being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of each of the plurality of substrates (stress in substrate during process related to different globally or locally flatness, fig14-17, [5, 141]).
Kito does not explicitly show how to obtain the magnification ratio and relation between magnification ratio and information about the deformation.
Akita teaches measuring curvature of a wafer during fabrication process (fig1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kito with the teaching of Akita to add in a curvature measuring data collected during device fabrication process before bonding process. The motivation to do so is to preserve product quality during fabrication, increase accuracy of curvature measurement used in the following bonding process (Akita, [4, 80]) and correct any misalignment related to warpage formed during process (Kito, [157]).
Re claim 53, Kito modified above teaches the processing method according to claim 52, wherein the first information is measured by an exposure apparatus (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data in bonding process of Kito for global fig13 and local fig24).
Re claim 54, Kito modified above teaches the processing method according to claim 52, wherein the first information is measured by observing a surface of the first substrate (warpage info collected during deposition process as in Akita with the apparatus in fig1-2 used for the magnification ratio data).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 24-29 and 35-54 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 11842905. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Re claim 24, claims of U.S. Patent No. 11842905 a method for manufacturing a stack (claim 27), the method comprising:
obtaining first information about deformation of a first substrate (claim 27), the deformation being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of the first substrate (claim 27);
outputting the first information to a controlling unit (claim 28), wherein the controlling unit is configured to select a second substrate to be bonded to the first substrate (claim 28), based on the first information (claim 28) and second information about deformation of a plurality of substrates other than the first substrate (claim 28), the deformation of the plurality of substrates being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of each of the plurality of substrates (claim 27); and
bonding the first substrate and the second substrate so as to manufacture a stack where the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded to each other (claim 28).
Re claim 46, claims of U.S. Patent No. 11842905 an apparatus (claim 27) comprising:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain first information about deformation of a first substrate (claim 27), the deformation being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of the first substrate (claim 27), and to output the first information to a controlling unit (claim 29),
wherein the controlling unit is configured to select a second substrate to be bonded to the first substrate (claim 28), based on the first information and second information about deformation of a plurality of substrates other than the first substrate (claim 28), the deformation of the plurality of substrates being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of each of the plurality of substrates (claim 28).
Re claim 52, claims of U.S. Patent No. 11842905 a processing method (claim 27) comprising:
obtaining first information about deformation of a first substrate (claim 27), the deformation being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of the first substrate (claim 27); and
outputting the first information to a controlling unit (claim 28),
wherein the controlling unit is configured to select a second substrate to be bonded to the first substrate (claim 28), based on the first information and second information about deformation of a plurality of substrates other than the first substrate (claim 28), the deformation of the plurality of substrates being deformation in a direction intersecting a bonding surface of each of the plurality of substrates (claim 28).
Response to Arguments
Regarding arguments about all the claims applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 XIAOMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-8pm, EST.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/XIAOMING LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2812