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.
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) 1-3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US Pub. No.: 2022/0285181 A1) (hereinafter Suzuki) and further in view of Okawa Osamu (JP2020013911 A) (hereinafter Osamu).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a method of processing wafer, comprising: bonding a film 13 of a lower wafer (10) and a film (23) or an upper wafer (20); forming a reformed layer (24) (corresponding to modified layer) in an annular pattern inside the upper wafer by applying laser beam of a wavelength having transmissivity for the first wafer, in the annular pattern to the first wafer along a position on a side inner by a predetermined distance than an outer peripheral edge of the first wafer; an outer peripheral region removal step of, after performing the modified layer forming step (Fig. 1-4; ¶0020-¶0039, removing an outer peripheral region of the first wafer, the outer peripheral region being on a side of the outer peripheral edge relative to the position where the modified layers have been formed in the annular pattern, by applying an external force to the outer peripheral region (Fig. 5A-5B; ¶0039-¶0040); an anneal processing step of, after performing the outer peripheral region removal step, performing anneal processing on the bonded wafer to increase joint strength between the first wafer and the second wafer (¶0042); a grinding step of, after performing the anneal processing step, grinding the first wafer of the bonded wafer from another surface of the first wafer to thin the first wafer to a predetermined finish thickness (¶0043; Fig. 8A-8B).
Suzuki is silent about plasma activation processing step as recited in claim 1.
Osamu also discloses a method of processing wafer. Osamu discloses plasma activating the surface of wafer during boding. The benefit of doing so would have been to increase material’s surface energy thus allowing for stronger bonds.
Give the wealth of knowledge it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill I the art to utilize plasma activation as taught by Osamu within the method of processing a wafer as taught by Suzuki. The benefit of doing so would have been to increase material’s surface energy thus allowing for stronger bonds.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses reformed layer (corresponding to modified layer) forming step, the laser beam is applied a plurality of times to the first wafer with a height position of a focal point of the laser beam changed every time in a thickness direction of the first wafer, such that modified layers are formed in a like plurality of annular patterns overlapping in the thickness direction of the first wafer (¶0033-¶0034; Fig. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses the reformed layer (corresponding to modified layer) a laser beam having a plurality of focal points apart from one another in a thickness direction of the first wafer is applied to the first wafer such that modified layers are formed in a like plurality of annular patterns overlapping in the thickness direction of the first wafer (¶0033-¶0034; Fig. 3A-3B).
Regarding claims 7 and 8 , Suzuki discloses the first wafer is held on a holding table via the second wafer in the modified layer forming step (Fig. 15; RC 5a); and the outer peripheral region of the first wafer is removed by external forced applied on the outer peripheral region. The peeling force is applied away form the table as opposed to downward direction (Fig. 21A-21D). However, the peeling force can be applied toward the table as opposed to away from table without destroying the invention. The benefit of doing so would have been to assure the top surface (22) separated first prior to removal of layer (23). This will assure the top surface (22) is not peeled further during separation process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights