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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended claim 12 are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the newly amended limitation, “wherein the surface modification layer has a thickness of 2.5nm to 4.5 nm,” of lines 6-7 of amended claim 12. This is unpersuasive, as Plach discloses a surface modification layer having a thickness range which results in a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to newly amended claim 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. The prior specification objection is withdrawn in view of amendments to the specification. The prior §112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 of claim 1 includes the phrase, “to a radio frequency power supplies,” which includes a grammatical error due to using the singular article “a” to refer to the plural noun “supplies”. For the purpose of this office action, the phrase is given the following interpretation: to radio frequency power supplies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 of claim 20 includes the phrase, “to a radio frequency power supplies,” which includes a grammatical error due to using the singular article “a” to refer to the plural noun “supplies”. For the purpose of this office action, the phrase is given the following interpretation: to radio frequency power supplies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: bonded is spelled incorrectly as “boned” in line 3 of claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation, "wherein at least one of the handle wafer and the device wafer comprises a wafer body and an insulating layer, and the insulating layer covers the wafer body," in lines 1-3 of the claim. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, as independent claim 1, on which claim 9 depends, recites the limitation, “a first surface of the handle wafer not covered by an insulating layer, a second surface of the device wafer not covered by an insulating layer,” in lines 3-4 of claim 1. In consulting the specification for context and clarification, paragraph 33 of the specification states, “as shown in Fig. 1, a surface S of a wafer 120 is treated with plasma 110. The wafer 120 is, for example, a handle wafer or a device wafer, and the outer surface of the wafer 120 is not covered by an insulating layer. In some other embodiments, the wafer 120 includes a wafer body and an insulating layer covering the wafer body. For a schematic cross-sectional view of the wafer 120, refer to a handle wafer 610 in Fig. 6 or a device wafer 820 in Fig. 8.” The meets and bounds of the above limitation of claim 9 are unclear, as it is unclear how the outer surface of the handle or device wafer can be both not covered by an insulating layer and also be covered by an insulating layer.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Low-Temperature Direct Bonding of SiC to Si via Plasma Activation,” pg. 1-9; hereinafter referred to as “Wang”) in view of Plach et al. (US PGPub 20150165752 A1; hereinafter referred to as "Plach”), Shimomura et al. (US PGPub 20100029058 A1; hereinafter referred to as " Shimomura”), and Hashizume (JP 2008108829 A; hereinafter referred to as “Hashizume”).
Re claim 1: Wang teaches a method of wafer bonding, comprising: receiving a handle wafer and a device wafer (pg. 2: section 2: para. 2); treating a first surface of the handle wafer not covered by an insulating layer, a second surface of the device wafer not covered by an insulating layer, or a combination thereof with a plasma (pg. 2: section 2: para. 2; pg. 2: FIG. 1, pg. 7: FIG. 6); and bonding the handle wafer and the device wafer (pg. 2: section 2: para. 2; pg. 2: FIG. 1, pg. 7: FIG. 6). Wang fails to disclose wherein the plasma is generated by an upper electrode and a lower electrode, and the upper electrode and the lower electrode are respectively connected to radio frequency power supplies with a frequency of about 40 kHz to about 400 kHz; coating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with water at a rotational speed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Plach teaches a method of wafer bonding including a plasma surface activation step (para. 1, 65). Plach teaches a method of wafer bonding, wherein the plasma is generated by an upper electrode and a lower electrode (FIG. 9: el. 21, 22), and the upper electrode and the lower electrode are respectively connected to radio frequency power supplies with a frequency of about 40 kHz to about 400 kHz (FIG. 9: el. 21, 22; para. 100, 132-133| Plach specifically discloses a frequency of 250 kHz to 550 kHz for an upper electrode and a frequency of 15kHz to 55kHz for a lower electrode, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness). Plach also teaches benefits of plasma activation with this frequency range is a uniform depth distribution of ions, a smoothing effect, and improved hydrophilicity on the surface being treated (para. 100, 132-133).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed
invention to combine the teachings of Wang and Plach to enable using the plasma treatment frequency of Plach in the plasma treatment step of the wafer bonding method of the combination of Wang, for the benefits of a uniform depth distribution of ions, a smoothing effect, and improved hydrophilicity on the wafer surface being treated.
The combination of Wang and Plach fails to teach coating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with water at a rotational speed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shimomura teaches a method of bonding substrates comprising: treating a first surface of the handle substrate, a second surface of the device substrate, or a combination thereof with plasma; coating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with water (para. 143|Shimomura teaches two fluid cleaning, using pure water and nitrogen gas, to coat and clean the bonding surface after plasma activation of the bonding surface; two-fluid cleaning is taught by Shimomura as one of three cleaning processes for cleaning the bonding surface after plasma activation; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions taught by Shimomura for cleaning the bonding surface and absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try each of the three cleaning processes to yield a clean bonding surface which maximizes bonding strength). Shimomura further teaches a benefit of coating the bonding surface with water using a two-fluid clean is to improve strength of the bond by removing dust, such as organic material, on the bonding surface following a plasma treatment (para. 143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed
invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wang and Plach with the teachings of Shimomura to enable using the two-fluid water coating and cleaning step of Shimomura in the wafer bonding method of the combination of Wang and Plach for the benefit of removing dust such as organic material on the bonding surface to improve bond strength.
The combination of Wang, Plach, and Shimomura fails to teach coating with water at a rotational speed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hashizume teaches a method of two fluid coating and cleaning with pure deionized water to remove foreign material from a wafer surface (para. 33: last two sentences). Hashizume teaches coating a surface of a wafer with water at a rotational speed (para. 35-38; para. 5|the wafer rotating and coating process of Hashizume is applied to a generic un-patterned or patterned wafer and applies to either a device wafer or a handle wafer). Hashizume further teaches a benefit of rotating a wafer while coating with water is to use centrifugal force to distribute water across the entire wafer surface (para. 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wang, Plach, and Shimomura with the teachings of Hashizume, to enable using the method of wafer rotation of Hashizume in the coating and cleaning step of the wafer bonding method of the combination of Wang, Plach, and Shimomura, for the benefit of distributing water across the entire wafer surface and the benefit of removing foreign material from a wafer surface before bonding.
Re claim 2: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the water has a resistance value ranging from about 0.5 MΩ·cm to about 18.3 MΩ·cm. (Hashizume – para. 33|water used to coat and clean the wafer surface is deionized water (DIW); the resistivity value of deionized water used in wafer cleaning operations is inherently between 0.5 to 18 MΩ·cm (Wang et al. – CN 115945434 A), and "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” as per MPEP 2144.05(i)).
Re claim 3: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rotational speed is about 1500 rpm to about 3500 rpm (Hashizume – para. 37-38|Hashizume specifically discloses that the rotational speed of a wafer during the two fluid coating and cleaning with deionized water step is 500 to 2500 rpm, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
Re claim 5: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein during treating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with the plasma, a bombardment time of the plasma is from 15 seconds to 30 seconds (Wang – pg. 3: FIG. 2; pg. 3: para. 1-2| Wang specifically discloses a plasma bombardment time of 30 seconds as an optimum plasma activation time for improving bonding efficiency, and as per MPEP 2131.03(i), "if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim; additionally, by teaching of the plasma treatment time as a result-effective variable for improving the bonding efficiency, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the plasma bombardment time as a matter of routine optimization to achieve the claimed range).
Re claim 6: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plasma comprises an oxygen plasma, a nitrogen plasma, an argon plasma, or combinations thereof (Wang - pg. 2: section 2: para. 2; pg. 2: FIG. 1; pg. 3: FIG. 2).
Re claim 7: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein coating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with the water comprises: providing the water and a gas with a nozzle to spray the water onto the first surface, the second surface, or the combination thereof (Hashizume – para. 33).
Re claim 9: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the handle wafer and the device wafer comprises a wafer body and an insulating layer, and the insulating layer covers the wafer body (Wang – pg. 1: abstract, pg. 8: conclusion| after bonding, an amorphous oxide layer is formed at the bond interface, and thus the bonded handle and device wafers comprise Si and SiC wafer bodies and further comprise an insulating amorphous silicon oxide layer covering the contact surface of the wafer bodies).
Re claim 10: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein bonding the handle wafer and the device wafer is performed at about 180 °C to about 1100 °C (Wang – pg. 7: FIG. 6; pg. 8: conclusion| Wang specifically discloses bonding the wafers at 300 °C to improve the bond interface, and as per MPEP 2131.03(i), "if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim").
Re claim 11: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 10, wherein bonding the handle wafer and the device wafer is performed at about 180 °C to about 600 °C (Wang – pg. 7: FIG. 6; pg. 8: conclusion| Wang specifically discloses bonding the wafers at 300 °C to improve the bond interface, and as per MPEP 2131.03(i), "if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim").
Re claim 21: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein during bonding the handle wafer and the device wafer, the first surface of the handle wafer not covered by the insulating layer is bonded with the second surface of the device wafer not covered by the insulating layer (Wang - pg. 7; pg. 7: FIG. 6| Wang teaches bonding the surface of the Si handle wafer not covered by the insulating layer (which in reference to claim 1 refers to the surface of the handle wafer which is treated with plasma) to the surface of the SiC device wafer not covered by the insulating layer (which in reference to claim 1 refers to the surface of the device wafer which is treated with plasma); additionally, Wang teaches that these plasma treated surfaces contain adsorbed water, dangling bonds, and unsaturated chemical species at the surface which act to bond the two wafers using hydrogen bonding in an initial bond; in a subsequent thermal bonding step, the adsorbed water, angling bonds, and unsaturated chemical species react to form an amorphous oxide bonding layer).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kanno et al. (US PGPub 20070141849 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kanno”).
Re claim 8: The combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume fails to teach the method of claim 7, wherein when providing the water and the gas with the nozzle, a flow rate of the water is about 0.14 L/min to about 0.22 L/min, and a flow rate of the gas is about 40 L/min to about 75 L/min.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kanno teaches two fluid cleaning with pure deionized water of a wafer surface (abstract, para. 69-71, 40). Kanno teaches when providing the water and the gas with the nozzle, a flow rate of the water is about 0.14 L/min to about 0.22 L/min, and a flow rate of the gas is about 40 L/min to about 75 L/min (para. 53, 55|Kanno specifically discloses a flow rate of wafer of 0.1 L/min to 0.2 L/min and a flow rate of gas of 10 L/min to 100 L/min, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”). Kanno also teaches benefits of the disclosed water and gas flow rates are sufficient atomization of liquid droplets along with improved cleaning performance and the prevention of particle re-deposition on the wafer surface (para. 53,55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume with the teachings of Kanno, to enable using the water and gas flow rates of Kanno in the two fluid cleaning step of the wafer bonding method of the combination of Wang, Plach, Shimomura, and Hashizume, for the benefits of sufficient atomization of liquid droplets, improved cleaning performance, and the prevention of particle re-deposition on the wafer surface.
Claim 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plach in view of Kissinger et al. (“Hydrophilicity of Silicon Wafers for Direct Bonding,” pg. 185-191; hereinafter referred to as “Kissinger”).
Re claim 12: Plach teaches a method of wafer bonding, comprising: receiving a handle wafer and a device wafer (para. abstract, 19, 25-26); treating a first surface of the handle wafer, a second surface of the device wafer, or a combination thereof with a plasma to form a surface modification layer in the first surface treated with the plasma, the second surface treated with the plasma, or the combination thereof (para. 65), wherein the surface modification layer has a thickness of 2.5nm to 4.5 nm (para. 65| Plach specifically discloses that the thickness of the plasma modified surface layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 5 nm, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”); coating the first surface treated with the plasma, the second surface treated with the plasma, or a combination thereof with water (para. 87); and bonding the first surface of the handle wafer and the second surface of the device wafer (para. 97-99). Plach teaches increasing the hydrophilicity of the wafer surface by plasma modifying the wafer surface (para. 100) but is silent to a water droplet contact angle of less than 5 degrees for the plasma modified surface.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kissinger teaches improving the bond strength of direct bonded silicon wafers by increasing the hydrophilicity of the wafer surface using plasma treatment (pg. 185: para. first and last paragraphs). Within this context, Kissinger teaches that a hydrophilic surface has a contact angle of 6 degrees or less (pg. 186: first paragraph). Kissinger teaches the water drop contact angle of a wafer surface as a result-effective variable for increasing the bond strength (pg. 185: last paragraph – pg. 186: first paragraph). Therefore, in the absence of an indication that the claimed ranged produces unexpected results or has criticality, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the water drop contact angle to achieve the claimed range of less than 5 degrees, as a matter of routine optimization for the benefit of improving the hydrophilicity and bonding strength of bonded wafers.
Re claim 13: The combination of Plach and Kissinger teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the plasma comprises an oxygen plasma, a nitrogen plasma, an argon plasma, or combinations thereof (Plach - para. 65).
Re claim 14: The combination of Plach and Kissinger teaches the method of claim 12, wherein bonding the first surface of the handle wafer and the second surface of the device wafer is performed at about 180°C to about 1100 °C (Plach – para. 97| Plach specifically discloses that the bonding temperature is less than 300 °C, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Re claim 15: The combination of Plach and Kissinger teaches the method of claim 12, wherein at least one of the handle wafer and the device wafer comprises a wafer body and an insulating layer, and the insulating layer covers the wafer body (Plach – para. 65| Plach teaches one of the bonded wafers, which is a wafer with a wafer body, is covered with the insulating layer of a thermal oxide).
Re claim 16: The combination of Plach and Kissinger teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the water has a resistance value ranging from about 0.5 MΩ·cm to about 18.3 MΩ·cm (Plach – para. 87| Plach teaches flushing a wafer with deionized water following plasma treatment; the water used to coat and flush the wafer surface is deionized water; the resistivity value of deionized water used in semiconductor wafer processing operations is inherently between 0.5 to 18 MΩ·cm (Wang et al. – CN 115945434 A)).
Re claim 20: The combination of Plach and Kissinger teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: before treating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with the plasma, generating the plasma by an upper electrode and a lower electrode (Plach - FIG. 9: el. 21, 22), wherein the upper electrode and the lower electrode are respectively connected to radio frequency power supplies with a frequency of about 40 kHz to about 400 kHz (Plach - FIG. 9: el. 21, 22; para. 100, 132-133| Plach specifically discloses a frequency of 250 kHz to 550 kHz for an upper electrode and a frequency of 15kHz to 55kHz for a lower electrode, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plach in view of Kissinger as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shimomura.
Re claim 17: The combination of Plach and Kissinger teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the water does not comprise ammonia, a chelating agent, a surfactant, or combinations thereof (Plach – para. 87| Plach teaches flushing with deionized water, and deionized water does not contain ammonia, a chelating agent, a surfactant, or combinations thereof).
The combination of Plach and Kissinger teaches the above limitation of claim 17, as explained above, but if applicant does not view the combination of Plach and Kissinger as teaching the limitation of claim 17, in a similar field of endeavor Shimomura teaches: a method of bonding substrates comprising: treating a first surface of the handle substrate, a second surface of the device substrate, or a combination thereof with plasma (para. 142-143); coating the first surface treated with the plasma, the second surface treated with the plasma, or a combination thereof with water (para. 143|Shimomura teaches two fluid cleaning, using pure water and nitrogen gas, to coat and clean the bonding surface after plasma activation of the bonding surface; two-fluid cleaning is taught by Shimomura as one of three cleaning processes for cleaning the bonding surface after plasma activation; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions taught by Shimomura for cleaning the bonding surface and absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try each of the three cleaning process to yield a clean bonding surface which maximizes bonding strength); wherein the water does not comprise ammonia, a chelating agent, a surfactant, or combinations thereof (para. 143| Shimomura teaches cleaning the bonding surface after plasma activation by two fluid cleaning using pure water). Shimomura further teaches a benefit of coating the bonding surface with water using a two-fluid clean is to improve strength of the bond by removing dust, such as organic material, on the bonding surface following a plasma treatment (para. 143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed
invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Plach and Kissinger with the teachings of Shimomura to enable using the two-fluid water coating and cleaning step of Shimomura in the wafer bonding method of the combination of Plach and Kissinger for the benefit of removing dust such as organic material on the bonding surface to improve bond strength.
Re claim 19: The combination of Plach and Kissinger fails to disclose the method of claim 12, wherein coating the first surface treated with the plasma, the second surface treated with the plasma, or the combination thereof with the water comprises: providing the water and a gas with a nozzle to spray the water onto the first surface, the second surface, or the combination thereof.
In a similar field of endeavor Shimomura teaches a method of bonding substrates comprising: treating a first surface of the handle substrate, a second surface of the device substrate, or a combination thereof with plasma (para. 142-143); coating the first surface treated with the plasma, the second surface treated with the plasma, or a combination thereof with water (para. 143|Shimomura teaches two fluid cleaning, using pure water and nitrogen gas, to coat and clean the bonding surface after plasma activation of the bonding surface; two-fluid cleaning is taught by Shimomura as one of three cleaning processes for cleaning the bonding surface after plasma activation; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions taught by Shimomura for cleaning the bonding surface and absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try each of the three cleaning process to yield a clean bonding surface which maximizes bonding strength); wherein coating the first surface treated with the plasma, the second surface treated with the plasma, or the combination thereof with the water comprises: providing the water and a gas with a nozzle to spray the water onto the first surface, the second surface, or the combination thereof (Shimomura – para. 143; Shimomura teaches coating and cleaning the plasma treated surface by spraying water together with a carrier gas such as nitrogen on the wafer surface in a two-fluid cleaning process; spraying water together with a gas implies the structure of a spray nozzle, and a nozzle is well-known to be inherent in a semiconductor two-fluid cleaning method). Shimomura further teaches a benefit of coating the bonding surface with water using a two-fluid clean is to improve strength of the bond by removing dust, such as organic material, on the bonding surface following a plasma treatment (para. 143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Plach and Kissinger with the teachings of Shimomura to enable using the two-fluid water coating and cleaning step of Shimomura in the wafer bonding method of the combination of Plach and Kissinger for the benefit of removing dust such as organic material on the bonding surface to improve bond strength.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plach in view of Kissinger as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Moriceau et al. (“Direct Wafer Bonding Surface Conditioning. In Handbook of Cleaning in Semiconductor Manufacturing,” pg. 519-525; hereinafter referred to as “Moriceau”).
Re claim 18: The combination of Plach and Kissinger fails to directly disclose the method of claim 12, wherein during treating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with the plasma, a bombardment time of the plasma is from 15 seconds to 30 seconds.
In a similar field of endeavor, Moriceau teaches a method of wafer bonding including a plasma surface activation step preceding a water coating step (pg. 519-520). Moriceau teaches a method of wafer bonding, wherein during treating the first surface of the handle wafer, the second surface of the device wafer, or the combination thereof with the plasma, a bombardment time of the plasma is from 15 seconds to 30 seconds (pg. 520: para. 3). Moriceau also teaches a benefit of a 30 second plasma treatment prior to wafer bonding is high bonding energies requiring only limited thermal annealing (pg. 520: para 3; pg. 521: FIG. 14.13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Plach and Kissinger with the teachings of Moriceau to enable using the plasma treatment time of Moriceau in the plasma treatment step of the wafer bonding method of the combination of Plach and Kissinger, for the benefit of simplifying manufacturing by using known process parameters for achieving high bonding energies requiring limited thermal annealing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon teaches direct wafer bonding using plasma activation and water coating steps.
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 DEVIN GOODLING whose telephone number is (571)272-2552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights