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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claim 1-8, 16 and 17 in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2012-231063 (wherein all textual citations are directed to the English machine translation provided).
JP2012-231063 teach a bonding system that bonds two objects to be bonded, the bonding system (See page 3, paragraph [0004]) comprising:
a bonder [46] that executes a positioning process of performing positioning of the two objects to be bonded under reduced pressure, and then executes a contact process of bringing the two objects [90] to be bonded into contact under reduced pressure (See page 23, paragraph [0029], teaching aligning and bonding in a reduced pressure chamber in bonding apparatus [46]); and
a conveying device [42] that conveys, to the bonder, the two objects [90] to be bonded, wherein the conveying device conveys, to the bonder, the two objects to be bonded in a state of being in contact with the bonder (See pages 26-27, paragraph [0033]-[0035], wherein the robot arm conveys the substrates [90] directly into the bonder, presumably placing them in direct contact; Examiner submits the arm in contact with the substrate in contact with the bonder is a “state of being in contact” as claimed), and the bonder [42] executes the positioning process and the contact process while isolating vibration transmitted from the conveying device [42] to the bonder, in a state where the conveying device is separated from the bonder (See Figs. 1-2 and pages 38-42, paragraphs [0050]-[0053], wherein it is clear the robotic arm [42] withdraws from the bonder [42] to be separated during bonding while any vibrations are isolated via a vibration isolation unit [104] in the bonder).
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 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-056507 (wherein all textual citations are directed to the English machine translation provided on 2/13/2026) in view of JP2017-162919 (wherein all textual citations are directed to the English machine translation provided).
JP2018-056507 teach a bonding system that bonds two objects to be bonded, the bonding system (See page 1, paragraphs [0001]-[0002]) comprising:
a bonder [200] that executes a positioning process of performing positioning of the two objects to be bonded under reduced pressure, and then executes a contact process of bringing the two objects [301],[302] to be bonded into contact under reduced pressure (See page 23, paragraph pages 14-17, paragraphs [0018]-[0022], wherein the bonding apparatus [100] reduces pressure for bonding and has position control); and
a conveying device [921] that conveys, to the bonder, the two objects [301],[302] to be bonded, wherein the conveying device conveys, to the bonder, the two objects to be bonded in a state of being in contact with the bonder (See pages page 11-12, paragraphs [0014]-[0015], wherein the vacuum transfer robot [921] transfers the substrates [301],[302] directly onto the bonding surface of the bonder; Examiner submits the arm in contact with the substrate in contact with the bonder is a “state of being in contact” as claimed), and the bonder [921] executes the positioning process and the contact process in a state where the conveying device is separated from the bonder (See Figs. 1, and note is clear conveying device, i.e. vacuum transfer robot, [921] may withdraw and be separated from bonder during bonding).
JP2018-056507 further teaches vibrations occur in the bonding devices that cause the bonding head, i.e. the holders, to vibrate, which hurts the positional accuracy of the substrates to be bonding (See page 2, paragraph [0004]). Although JP2018-056507 attempts to reduce errors of vibration misalignment by frequently measuring and correcting position (See page 7, paragraph [0010]), it’s clear minimizing vibrations in the head/positioning holder during bonding would be highly desirable to reduce/eliminate any positioning errors. Further, for similar measuring devices to enhance position in similar reduced pressure bonding, it is known to cancel vibrations in the base, and inherently in the holders [22] and [12], supported by said base, by actively cancelling/offsetting vibrations through movement as in claim 16 (See Fig. 1, page 2, paragraphs [0001]-[0002], and pages 68-69, paragraphs [0096]-[0097]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement such active vibration offset. Doing so would have predictably increased accuracy of measurements and thus improved positioning prior to bonding. This vibrational offsetting would have predictably offset any vibration in the bonder including any from the conveying device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
Claims 2-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of structural features recited in claims 2/17, specifically the facing frame bodies on opposing chamber walls, the annular inflatable seal member with filling region that transitions between an expanded sealing state and a contracted separated state, the seal drive unit, and the gate/gate drive unit arrangement on each chamber has been carefully considered against the prior art of record.
Munakata et al. (US 4,948,979) discloses a vacuum device comprising a vacuum working chamber and a vacuum prechamber that are physically separable, with cylindrical coupling members on opposing side walls of each chamber that contact each other for substrate transfer and separate during processing. Munakata et al. explicitly motivates the separation as a means of preventing vibration transmission from the prechamber operations to the working chamber during precision processing, noting that vibration from the prechamber during material exchange operations would degrade processing quality. Munakata et al. provides the clearest teaching of the motivation to physically separate a processing chamber from a transfer chamber specifically to eliminate vibration transmission and likely motivates such separation in JP2018-056507 to reduce vibrations that impede positional accuracy discussed therein. However, Munakata et al. does not disclose an inflatable annular seal member with a filling region between facing frame bodies. Munakata et al. discloses coupling members that make rigid direct contact when connected and physically move apart when separated. Thus, Munakata et al. provides motivation for physical separation but not the specific structural mechanism of claims 2/17.
JPH07283286 teaches an ultra-high vacuum transfer device for semiconductor manufacturing where a process chamber and sample transfer path are partitioned by two gate valves, with a quick coupling joint between them that can be mechanically separated to eliminate vibration transmission during processing. JPH07283286 explicitly motivates the separation as preventing mechanical vibration from other devices transmitting through the transfer path to the precision processing chamber. JPH07283286 disconnection mechanism is a quick coupling joint that physically detaches and exposes the connection to atmosphere. This is fundamentally different an inflatable annular seal that maintains vacuum integrity. Although the above reference certainly indicate separation between adjacent chamber as a plausible way to reduce vibrations, they do not indicate the need for an inflatable sealing member as claimed.
Although inflatable sealing members are well-known in the prior art, there is no specific motivation to implement them as in Claims 2/17. JP2021-34406 discloses, as shown in Figure 4, a connecting member comprising a metal frame fitted with an inflatable rubber seal body that expands when fluid is introduced to create a vacuum seal against the opposing chamber face, and contracts when fluid is discharged to allow separation and rotation of the intermediate chamber. However, the inflatable connecting member exists to enable the intermediate chamber to physically rotate for substrate inversion, and provides no indicate of vibration isolation or vacuum-maintaining disconnection between a bonder and conveying device. It is thus unclear why a there would be any motivation to utilize this mechanism in a system such as JP2018-056507 modified by Munakata et al. Although it could plausibly create a separable connection in JP2018-056507, JP2021-34406 operates in a flat panel display manufacturing context that is not analogous to semiconductor wafer bonding and does not address vibrations as in Munakata et al. A skilled person working on a semiconductor bonding system and seeking to solve the vibration isolation problem of the primary references above would have no motivation to consult JP2021-34406, whose inflatable seal serves a rotational clearance function in a different technological field with no specific advantage apparent in bonding systems as claimed.
Toro-Lira et al. (US 5,098,245) discloses a wafer handling system for semiconductor inspection applications comprising a main vacuum chamber and a load lock elevator assembly. The elevator assembly includes a circular inflatable elastomer seal around its periphery that, when pressurized, seals the lock chamber against the round opening of the lid of the main chamber, and when deflated allows the elevator to move downward. The reference is in the semiconductor wafer handling field and the inflatable seal is motivated by vacuum maintenance and contamination control during wafer transfer. Toro-Lira et al. provides a closer structural analog to the claimed seal member than JP2021-34406, being in the semiconductor wafer context with vacuum maintenance as the explicit motivation. However, the inflatable seal here operates vertically between an elevator mechanism and an overhead chamber lid opening, a fundamentally different geometry from the bonders cited above. The elevator mechanism is not a separate vacuum chamber with its own maintained vacuum state, gate, and gate drive unit as required by conveying device in the claims. There are no facing frame bodies since the structure is a load lock integrated into the chamber door system rather than two distinct adjacent chambers each with their own frame body surrounding a gate.
Smith et al. (GB 2587367) discloses a vibration damping connector system for connecting a vacuum pump to a vacuum chamber, using inflatable sealing members arranged between end members to provide both a gas-tight seal and vibration isolation between the connected components. Smith et al. explicitly teaches that inflatable sealing members serve the dual function of vacuum integrity and vibration damping, and frames this teaching as applicable to any vacuum pump-to-chamber connection in semiconductor manufacturing and related equipment. The inflatable sealing members comprise annular hollow bodies with filling regions filled with gas, transitioning between an inflated sealing state and a deflated state in which the seal separates from at least one adjacent surface. Smith et al. explicitly connects inflatable sealing members to vibration isolation in a vacuum system used in semiconductor manufacturing. However, Smith et al. teaches the inflatable seal as a compliant cushion that remains in contact with both connected components throughout operation and reduces vibration transmission as opposed to retracting to eliminate a mechanical connection. Smith et al. teaches the vacuum pump and vacuum chamber are statically positioned relative to each other, permanently secured by bolts, and the seal never causes physical disconnection between the components. Deflation of the seal may cause separation from one surface within the fixed assembly, but the overall mechanical connection between the pump and chamber is maintained at all times via the securing members. As such, a skilled person implementing Smith et al. would have no motivation to also physically separate the chambers, since the cushion's function requires maintained contact. This means even if a cushion as in Smith et al. is obvious, and it likely is, there is not motivation therein to implement it in the fashion of Claims 2/17 since the cushion could simply be added to the primary references above without need to redesign the connection with distinct frames as claimed.
The prior art of record presents a consistent and unbridgeable gap with respect to claims 2 and 17. Munakata et al., Toro-Lira et al., and JP2021-34406 all teach physical separation through component movement, providing no motivation to instead implement a static inflatable seal connection wherein inflation/deflation itself sealing between the chambers. Further, Munakata et al. teaches a moving chamber mechanism already achieving the desired complete separation without inflation, Toro-Lira et al. lacks bridging adjacent vacuum chambers, and JP2021-34406 is unrelated to vibrations. Smith et al., the sole reference teaching a static inflatable seal between vacuum components, does not achieve complete mechanical disconnection and instead functions as a compliant cushion that reduces vibration while maintaining permanent contact. Smith et al. provides no motivation to adopt complete separation as in Munakata et al. since Smith et al. represents a fundamentally distinct solution to the vibration problem (i.e. cushioning as opposed to separation). No reference teaches or suggests complete separation with all the features as claimed with a static inflatable seal mechanism to create or eliminate the seal. Although many similar mechanisms exist, the specificity of the two vacuum chambers for conveying and bonding with precise positioning wherein the chambers are separated via annular seal inflation and deflation to achieve the advantage of reducing vibration via said structure, is considered inventive.
The prior art presents a consistent pattern in which either the relevant structural features are present without the relevant motivation, or the relevant motivation is present without the relevant structural features, and no combination of references provides both in a manner that would lead a skilled person to claim 2/17 without hindsight. The specific interface between the bonder chamber and the conveying device chamber to avoid vibrations is comprises known aspects such as induced separation and inflatable seals between chambers, but provides no motivation to implement it exactly as claimed in a reduced pressure positioning bonder as claimed. The two chambers sit on separate frames, facing each other across a gap. Each chamber has its own gate and gate drive unit. Each chamber has a frame body surrounding its gate on the exterior wall. The annular inflatable seal member is arranged between these facing frame bodies. When inflated, the seal expands to bridge the gap between the frame bodies, sealing the region between them and enabling vacuum-maintaining substrate transfer. When deflated, the seal contracts and physically separates from at least one frame body, allowing the chambers to be completely mechanically disconnected from each other. This complete disconnection during the positioning and contact processes eliminates vibration transmission from the conveying device to the bonder entirely by removing the mechanical transmission path altogether.
This architecture simultaneously solves two distinct engineering problems: maintaining vacuum integrity during substrate transfer, and achieving complete mechanical isolation between the bonder and conveying device during precision bonding. The specific combination of these two functions in a single inflatable seal mechanism arranged between facing frame bodies of adjacent bonding system chambers is considered nonobvious for the reasons above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights