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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a free-standing metal structure” (claims 7, 14) must be pointed out in at least one figure. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 15-20 are 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.
With respect to claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17, recited feature “the structure” (line 1) lacks sufficient antecedent basis and it is not clear what structure/part is being referred to? The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: bonded structure contains a thermal ground plane, oscillating heat pipe, microfluidic connector, hermetically sealed cavity, probe card, filter, a sensor, a microchip, integrated circuitry, rocket nozzle component, a RF component, a chemical microfluidics component, or a decorative application.
With respect to claim 14, limitation of “the metal structures is released from all substrates” is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by “metal structures”. Previous claim 8 only a recites a single metal structure. For purpose of examination, the claim is taken to mean: the metal structure is released from all substrate and forms a free-standing metal structure.
With respect to claim 15, recited step “positioning the at least two substrates such that the structure is formed” lacks sufficient antecedent and it is unclear what structure/part is being referred to? The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: positioning the at least two substrates to form the metal structure.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by OR, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Christenson et al. (US 6332568, hereafter “Christenson”).
Regarding claim 1, Christenson discloses a method of preparing a metal structure on a substrate (figs. 1-2; col. 1, lines 15-25) comprising: providing at least two substrates 100 & 108 (fig. 1a) or 200 & 205 (fig. 2a), where at least a first substrate 108/205 (top substrate) is provided with a sacrificial layer 109/206 (release layer) and thereon a metal feature layer 110-114 (fig. 1a; col. 2, lines 32-40) or 207-208 (fig. 2a; col. 4, lines 27-38), where a second substrate 100/200 (bottom substrate) is provided with a metal structure 104 or 201-202, which contains a void that is open at least on one of its sides, positioning the at least two substrates such that the metal feature layer faces the metal structure containing the void (figs. 1a, 2a), bonding the metal feature layer with the metal structure containing the void by diffusion bonding (thermocompression bonding) such that a seal is provided and the void forms a hermetically sealed cavity (figs. 1b, 2b; col. 3, lines 51-58; col. 4, lines 4-10, 39-42); releasing the first substrate 108/205 from the bonded metal structure by removing the sacrificial release layer 109/206 by etching techniques (fig. 1c, 2c; col. 4, lines 12-22, lines 43-47; col. 2, lines 61-64).
Concerning thermocompression bonding, Applicant’s specification discloses that diffusion bonding is also known by other names such as thermocompression welding, solid-state welding or pressure joining (pg. 5, lines 19-26). Moreover, Christensen teaches performing diffusion bonding using heat & pressure (col. 3, line 66 thru col. 4, line 10), which meets ‘thermocompression bonding’. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that diffusion bonding using heat & pressure in Christenson is equivalent to thermocompression bonding, at least rendering the claim obvious.
As to claims 2-3, Christensen discloses that the bonded structure contains a hermetically sealed cavity (see cavity under 117- fig. 1c and under 207- fig. 2c).
As to claim 4, Christensen discloses the bonding is achieved by thermocompression bonding, as explained in claim 1 above.
As to claim 6, Christensen shows that one or more rigid support features (101-103, 106-107) are provided on the surface of the second substrate 100 by one or more sides of the metal structure (fig. 1b), thereby preventing crushing or deforming of the metal structure during the bonding step.
Regarding claim 8, Christenson discloses a method of preparing a metal structure on a substrate (figs. 1-2; col. 1, lines 15-25) comprising: providing at least two substrates 100 & 108 (fig. 1a) or 200 & 205 (fig. 2a), where at least a first substrate 108/205 (top substrate) is provided with a sacrificial layer 109/206 (release layer) and thereon a metal feature layer 110-114 (fig. 1a; col. 2, lines 32-40) or 207-208 (fig. 2a; col. 4, lines 27-38), where a second substrate 100/200 (bottom substrate) is provided with a seed layer and a metal structure 104 or 201-202, which contains a void that is open at least on one of its sides, positioning the at least two substrates such that the metal feature layer faces the metal structure containing the void (figs. 1a, 2a), bonding the metal feature layer with the metal structure containing the void by diffusion bonding (thermocompression bonding) such that a seal is provided and the void forms a hermetically sealed cavity (figs. 1b, 2b; col. 3, lines 51-58; col. 4, lines 4-10, 39-42); releasing the first substrate 108/205 from the bonded metal structure by removing the sacrificial release layer 109/206 by etching techniques (fig. 1c, 2c; col. 4, lines 12-22, lines 43-47; col. 2, lines 61-64).
Concerning thermocompression bonding, Applicant’s specification discloses that diffusion bonding is also known by other names such as thermocompression welding, solid-state welding or pressure joining (pg. 5, lines 19-26). Moreover, Christensen teaches performing diffusion bonding using heat & pressure (col. 3, line 66 thru col. 4, line 10), which meets ‘thermocompression bonding’. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that diffusion bonding using heat & pressure in Christenson is equivalent to thermocompression bonding, at least rendering the claim obvious.
As to claims 9-10, Christensen discloses that the bonded structure contains a hermetically sealed cavity (see cavity under 117- fig. 1c and under 207- fig. 2c).
As to claim 11, Christensen discloses the bonding is achieved by thermocompression bonding, as explained in claim 1 above.
As to claim 13, Christensen shows that one or more rigid support features (101-103, 106-107) are provided on the surface of the second substrate 100 by one or more sides of the metal structure (fig. 1b), thereby preventing crushing or deforming of the metal structure during the bonding step.
Regarding claim 15, Christenson discloses a method of preparing a metal structure on a substrate (figs. 1-2; col. 1, lines 15-25) comprising: providing at least two substrates 100 & 108 (fig. 1a) or 200 & 205 (fig. 2a), where at least a first substrate 108/205 (top substrate) is provided with a sacrificial layer 109/206 (release layer) and thereon a first part of a metal structure 110-114 (fig. 1a; col. 2, lines 32-40) or 207-208 (fig. 2a; col. 4, lines 27-38), where a second substrate 100/200 (bottom substrate) is provided with a seed layer and a second part of a metal structure 104 or 201-202, wherein the first and second part metal structures are complementary such that they form a complete structure which contains a cavity that is closed from all sides when the at least two substrates are positioned facing each other (figs. 1b, 2b), bonding the first and second part metal structures containing the cavity by diffusion bonding (thermocompression bonding) such that a seal is provided and forms a hermetically sealed cavity (figs. 1b, 2b; col. 3, lines 51-58; col. 4, lines 4-10, 39-42); releasing the first substrate 108/205 from the bonded metal structure by removing the sacrificial release layer 109/206 by etching techniques (fig. 1c, 2c; col. 4, lines 12-22, lines 43-47; col. 2, lines 61-64).
Concerning thermocompression bonding, Applicant’s specification discloses that diffusion bonding is also known by other names such as thermocompression welding, solid-state welding or pressure joining (pg. 5, lines 19-26). Moreover, Christensen teaches performing diffusion bonding using heat & pressure (col. 3, line 66 thru col. 4, line 10), which meets ‘thermocompression bonding’. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that diffusion bonding using heat & pressure in Christenson is equivalent to thermocompression bonding, at least rendering the claim obvious.
As to claims 16-17, Christensen discloses that the bonded structure contains a hermetically sealed cavity (see cavity under 117- fig. 1c and under 207- fig. 2c).
As to claim 18, Christensen discloses the bonding is achieved by thermocompression bonding, as explained in claim 1 above.
As to claim 20, Christensen shows that one or more rigid support features (101-103, 106-107) are provided on the surface of the second substrate 100 by one or more sides of the metal structure (fig. 1b), thereby preventing crushing or deforming of the metal structure during the bonding step.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen as applied to claim 1, 8 and 15 above, and in view of Coppeta et al. (US 8191756, “Coppeta”).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Christensen discloses bonding between nickel to nickel (col. 4, lines 5-8, claim 5), but is silent in terms of aluminum, copper or gold. However, bonding such materials is known in the art. Coppeta is directed to a method of compressing bonding joint structures to form hermetically sealed devices by using at least two substrates (abstract, figs. 1, 4, 8-9; col. 2, lines 6-40). Coppeta discloses metal to metal bonding between joint structures using various combinations of metals of same or different types, which encompasses bonding between gold to gold, gold to copper, gold to aluminum, gold to silver, silver to aluminum, silver to copper, copper to copper, copper to aluminum or aluminum to aluminum (col. 2, lines 56-64; col. 7, lines 10-23; col. 12, lines 50-61). Joining of such metals is useful in many applications of forming sealed devices, including electronic or medical devices (Background- col. 1, lines 14-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to bond any suitable metal including copper or gold in the method of Christensen in order to form a desired hermetically sealed device, as suggested by Coppeta.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and in view of Zhang (US 8216931).
As to claims 7 and 14, Christensen does not mention releasing the metal structure from both substrates, thereby forming a free-standing metal structure. However, such technique is known in the art. Zhang (directed to formation of multi-layer three-dimensional structures- abstract) discloses that it has been known in prior art to remove/etch the sacrificial material to release the microstructure after all the layers have been built, particularly applicable in MEMS manufacturing (Background- col. 1, lines 25-40, 62-63; col. 3, lines 30-35). Zhang teaches selectively removing sacrificial material from the formed multi-layer structure to form a desired final multi-layer structure, wherein the removal technique includes dry etching (fig. 7- block 116; col 14, line 4-10). Analogous to Christensen, Zhang also teaches diffusion bonding (col. 16, lines 15-37), resulting in a free-standing multi-layer 3D structure 138 after the layers/substrates and sacrificial materials are removed, useful for MEMS and microelectronics fabrication (fig. 13C; col. 16, lines 30-50). Coppeta also discloses applications of hermetically sealed devices for MEMS devices fabrication (abstract; col. 13, lines 54-56; col. 20, lines 46-54). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to release the metal structure from both substrates to form a free-standing metal structure after diffusion bonding in the method of Christensen with a motivation to fabricate final, target MEMS and microelectronic device, as indicated by Zhang.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/19/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights