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 . 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: chuck movement device, suction device, pushing device, first support device, and second support device in claims 1, 9 & 10, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The chuck movement device is interpreted as the chuck movement device 54 & 56 [0049-0050]. The suction device is interpreted as suction tubes (see instant specification [0054-0056]). The pushing device is interpreted as actuator and cylinder [0055]. The first and second support device are interpreted as the upper chuck support device 53 and the lower chuck movement device 54 [0051-0052].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a control circuit to acquire a warp amount of substrates and determine a desired size for a gap between the first and second substrates based on the warp amount and then controlling chuck movement to move one of the first and second substrates to adjust the gap before bonding the substrates. To determine and evaluate and determine is to obtain and evaluate a warp amount and then a desired gap size. The act of determining the warp amount and then evaluating a gap size based on the warp amount is an act that can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A, prong 1 - MPEP 2164.04(a) notes that evaluations or determinations are considered abstract ideas. In the present case the human mind would be able to obtain or determine the warp amount and then evaluate the gap size needed to bond the substrates.
Step 2A, prong 2 – this does not appear to be integrated into a practical application as the abstract idea – the control circuit – is not linked to the subsequent bonding step. Moreover, even if amended to be generally linked, it has been held that generally applying an abstract idea or “generally linking the exception to a particular field of endeavor” are considered insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106(g)).
Step 2B – In the present case, and as evidenced by the art provided (see rejection section below), there is nothing indicating the additional features are other than well-understood, routine and conventional to bonding apparatuses for wafers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauichi (WO2017155002 - see machine translation attached).
Regarding claims 1, 8-10, Yamauchi discloses a wafer bonding apparatus and method [0011], and discloses the apparatus including a first and second chuck, supported by first and second support devices [0029-0033], and discloses the chucks to be vacuum chucks [0031]. Yamauchi also discloses a bonding chamber with suction devices connected to vacuum pumps for holding the first substrate (302) [0024-0025], as well as a pressurizing device that pressurizes the first substrate by pushing against the first substrate [0055-0057]. Yamauchi discloses a controller or control unit (700) that is configured to control all aspects of the joining process [0023], and is configured to detect a warpage amount (including a protrusion amount of a portion of the first substrate relative to the edge of the first substrate), and determine a desired size or gap between the first and second substrate (301) based on the warp amount and accordingly control the movement of the chucks to adjust the gap and bond the substrate ([0194-0195]; [0198-0204]; [0206-0211] & [0215]; see figures 22A-24B & 27A-28C; see claims 18-22).
Regarding claim 2, Yamauchi discloses using a relational formula that is based on the gap size and warp amount to determine the desired size of the gap (see figures 22A-24B & 27A-28C; claims 18-22).
Regarding claims 3-4, Yamauchi discloses that the controller determines the desired size of the gap in a manner that decreases the desired size of the gap based on a increase in the warp amount (see figures 22A-24B & 27A-28C; [0206-0211 & 0215]). Yamauchi has also disclosed that the desired size of the gap is based on a line between the centers of the first and second substrate (see figures 22A-24B & 27A-28C).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Yamauchi explicitly disclosed that all aspects of the joining process and apparatus are controlled by the controller (700) [0023]. Further, Yamauchi has disclosed determining a strength of the pressurizing or projecting force based on the gap size as well as controlling the projection mechanism accordingly (430) when bonding the substrates (claim 6; [0065-0066]; [0195]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Yamauchi discloses pressurizing a center of the substrate (see figures 22A-24B & 27A-28C). Yamauchi also discloses bonding the first substrate to an upper surface of the second substrate (see figures 22A-24B & 27A-28C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S PG Pub 20160009070A1, U.S PG Pub 20170278803A1, U.S PG Pub 20170060000A1, U.S Patent 12469737B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights