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
Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/19/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “a degree of parallelism” in line 2. Since a degree of parallelism is previously recited in claim 1, it is unclear whether the recitation in claim 2 is referring to the same degree of parallelism or the previously mentioned degree of parallelism. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “[[a]] the degree of parallelism” in line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US 2020/0020553) in view of Yamauchi (US 2012/0127485).
Otsuka teaches a bonding apparatus (110) comprising a first holder (20) for a first substrate (W1), a second holder (30) for a second substrate (W2), a first vessel (11) having a flange (113) protruding outwardly therefrom, and opening/closing devices (13) each comprising a shaft (131) which supports the first holder via the flange and a driver (132) which moves a respective shaft vertically toward or away from the second holder (See Fig. 3; [0045]-[0054]). The second holder (30) and second substrate (W2) of Otsuka read on the instantly claimed stage and first substrate, respectively. The first holder (20) and first substrate (W1) read on the instantly claimed head which faces the stage and second substrate, respectively. The first vessel (11) and flange (113) collectively form a head holder which holds the head on a side opposite the stage and extends outwardly beyond the head and stage as claimed. The shafts (131) and drivers (132) read on the instantly claimed plurality of holder supports and plurality of support drivers, respectively.
Regarding claims 1-2, Otsuka does not expressly disclose the newly added limitation requiring that the plurality of support drivers be configured to adjust a degree of parallelism of the head with respect to the stage immediately before bonding by individually moving the plurality of holder supports and thereby adjusting distances between the head and the stage at positions corresponding to the holder supports.
Yamauchi teaches a bonding apparatus (1) for bonding a component (92) on a substrate (91) by applying heat and pressure in a vacuum chamber (2), the bonding apparatus comprising a head (22) which holds the component, a stage (12) which holds the substrate, and actuators (31) which move vertically to adjust the parallelism between the head and the stage (See Figures; [0063]-[0069]; [0072]-[0074]; [0139]-[0145]). The actuators correspond to the opening/closing devices (13) of Otsuka and the instantly claimed support drivers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the degree of parallelism between the first holder and second holder of Otsuka by individually adjusting the opening/closing devices in the manner taught by Yamauchi. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Yamauchi that to do so would predictably eliminate an undesirable displacement between the substrates to be bonded (See [0099]; [0139]-[0145]).
Regarding claim 3, Otsuka shows a plan view of the bonding apparatus including two opening/closing devices. Otsuka does not expressly disclose three such devices as claimed.
Yamauchi teaches that three actuators (31a-c) may be present (See Fig. 3 and its description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include three opening/closing devices in the bonding apparatus of Otsuka because Yamauchi teaches that having three actuators was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for a bonding device, as detailed above. Furthermore, the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, additional opening/closing devices perform in the same manner as the two shown by Otsuka and therefore yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 6, Otsuka teaches displacement sensors (53,54) which measure distances between an imaging unit and the substrates in order to calculate substrate thicknesses and thereby determine a distance between the substrates (See Figures; [0092]-[0093]; [0103]). Otsuka does not expressly disclose measuring a distance between the substrates (or the head or stage) at three locations as claimed.
Yamauchi teaches an embodiment in which three distance-measuring sensors (33a-c) detect the relative position between the head and the stage at various points therebetween (See Fig. 31; [0179]; [0186]-[0189]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate three distance-measuring sensors in the bonding apparatus of Otsuka. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Yamauchi that to do so would predictably provide very accurate measurements relative position and posture of the head and the stage (See [0189]).
Regarding claim 8, Otsuka teaches a chamber (10) comprising the first vessel (11) and a second vessel (12), wherein the chamber is maintained in a reduced pressure state, wherein the chamber contains the first and second holders, and wherein the chamber is arranged on an inner side of the plurality of drivers (132) (See Figures; [0048]; [0052]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US 2020/0020553) in view of Yamauchi (US 2012/0127485) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bansal (US 2017/0309528).
Otsuka and Yamauchi combine to teach a bonding apparatus, as detailed above.
Otsuka and Yamauchi not expressly disclose couplers between the shafts (131) and the flange (113) which allow flange to be freely swingable on the shafts and a locking mechanism which may be in an unlocked state allowing for the free swinging of the flange or a locked state which the flange is held fixedly relative to the shafts and is not freely swingable.
Bansal teaches an apparatus (500) which dynamically adjusts a substrate support disposed in a processing chamber, the apparatus comprising a plurality of extendable adjustment members (518) which may be coupled to the substrate support via ball joints which may be freely swingable or locked in a fixed state (See Fig. 4B; [0055]-[0056]). The ball joints read on the instantly claimed couplers. Some component must be in place to provide the locking function described by Bansal. Any such component reads on the instantly claimed locking mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to couple the shafts to the flange with locking ball joints in the bonding device taught by the combination of Otsuka and Yamauchi in order to improve the flexibility of the bonding apparatus by allowing for tilting, swiveling, and other movements of the flange.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US 2020/0020553) in view of Yamauchi (US 2012/0127485) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0370210).
Otsuka and Yamauchi combine to teach a bonding apparatus, as detailed above.
Otsuka and Yamauchi not expressly disclose a pressing mechanism which causes at least one of the substrates to bend such that a central portion thereof protrudes further than a peripheral portion which is held.
Kim teaches a wafer bonding apparatus (100) comprising an upper support plate (110) which holds a first wafer (210), a lower support place (120) which supports a second wafer, and a bonding initiator (130) which extends through the upper support plate and bends a center portion of the first wafer such that the center portion protrudes further than a peripheral portion of the first wafer (See Figures; [0020]-[0027]). The bonding initiator reads on the instantly claimed pressing mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a bonding initiator in the bonding apparatus taught by the combination of Otsuka and Yamauchi. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Kim that to do so would predictably allow for bonding to propagate outwardly from a center portion of the first wafer (See Figs. 3A-3D; [0027]). Such progressive bonding predictably prevents undesirable air inclusions which may be captured when planar substrates are brought together simultaneously along their entire surfaces.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US 2020/0020553) in view of Yamauchi (US 2012/0127485) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamauchi (JP 2017-162919, hereinafter referred to as ‘919 to avoid confusion with the previously cited reference to the same inventor).
Otsuka and Yamauchi combine to teach a bonding apparatus, as detailed above. Otsuka teaches a base plate (14) which reads on the instantly claimed top plate which supports the stage, the head, and the plurality of support drivers.
Regarding claims 9-10, Otsuka and Yamauchi do not expressly disclose a plate support which supports the base plate and includes an anti-vibration mechanism, a vibration detector which detects vibration transmitted to the top plate, a plate driver which drives the top plate relative to the plate support, and a controller which controls the plate driver based on detected vibration to cancel such vibration.
‘919 teaches an apparatus (1) for aligning and bonding a first substrate (91) and a second substrate (92) in a vacuum chamber (2), the apparatus comprising a head (22) which holds the second substrate, a stage (12) which holds the first substrate, a base member (3), and an active vibration damping mechanism which holds the base member in a freely movable manner and comprises a vibration detection unit and a drive unit which drives the base member based upon the detected vibrations to cancel them (See Figures; [0027]-[0028]; [0033]; [0096]). The base member, active vibration damping mechanism, vibration detection unit, and drive unit read on the instantly claimed top plate, anti-vibration mechanism, vibration detector, and plate driver, respectively. A vibration isolation controller as claimed is implicit in the reference because the active movement of the drive unit based upon vibrations detected by the vibration detection unit as described requires active control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the active vibration damping mechanism of ‘919 in the bonding apparatus taught by the combination of Otsuka and Yamauchi in order to predictably eliminate vibrations which can cause misalignment between the substrates to be bonded.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed for the same reasons detailed in the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to recite support drivers which are configured to adjust a degree of parallelism between the head and the stage. Examiner agrees that this feature is absent in the Otsuka reference. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamauchi, as detailed above.
Applicant's arguments against the combination of Otsuka and Yamauchi have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Applicant first argues against the Otsuka reference by stating that the Otsuka reference does not teach adjusting a degree of parallelism as claimed. This is not persuasive because the Yamauchi reference is relied upon for such a teaching, not the Otsuka reference. Similarly, Applicant argues against the Yamauchi reference by pointing out that the actuators of Yamauchi occupy a different position than the instantly claimed support drivers. This argument is also unpersuasive because the rejection does not rely on the Yamauchi reference to teach the position of the support drivers. Instead, the support drivers of Otsuka already occupy the claimed position, as detailed above.
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 CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights