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.
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 Interpretation
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 tempering device in claim 10, disclosed as comprising of a tempering circuit 80 and/or a heating element 94 in the body of the first and/or second chuck in Fig. 1;
Gas tempering device in claim 15, disclosed as component 34 comprising of a tempering module/container 64 and a tempering material 65 having two channels 66 (Fig. 1; P19, L21-22).
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.
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 § 103
Claim(s) 8-10, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP 2015103757) in view of Wagenleitner et al. (US 20190019678).
As to claim 8, D1 discloses a method for bonding a first substrate W1 to a second substrate W2 using a bonding device comprising a first chuck 400 and a second chuck 420, the method comprising the following steps: equalizing the temperatures of the first chuck and the second chuck, placing the first substrate on the first chuck and fixing the first substrate to the first chuck, placing the second substrate on the second chuck and fixing the second substrate to the second chuck, and moving the first chuck and the second chuck relative to each other towards each other at least until the first substrate and the second substrate are in contact with one another (Abstract; Fig. 3, 5, 12; Fig. 18-23 below; ¶16, 35, 109).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D1 discloses that the upper and lower chucks have vacuum ports for holding a substrate to a chuck and a push pin 411 capable of pushing the substrate from the chuck (Id.), but fails to specifically teach or disclose that the first chuck may supply gas from a pressure port at a first pressure which is capable of deflecting a first substrate towards a second substrate. Wagenleitner discloses a method/apparatus for bonding substrates (Abstract). Wagenleitner discloses that the method uses first and second chucks for bonding substrates to one another (Fig. 4a). Wagenleitner discloses that the first chuck may have a pressure port that supplies gas at a first pressure to deflect the first substrate towards another (Id.). Wagenleitner teaches that the positive pressure port 5 in tandem with vacuum ports 2 enable a desired curvature of the substrate in the chuck (Id.; ¶23, 127, 133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the positive pressure port of Wagenleitner in the method taught by D1 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for pushing a center of a substrate away from a chuck in a substrate pressing process. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image2.png
657
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, the method of claim 8 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the chucks are brought into “direct contact with one another” through the substrates laminated (Id.) in the same manner that Applicant discloses in the drawings, wherein the temperatures of the chucks are equalized to a desired temperature.
As to claims 10 and 12, the method of claim 8 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the bonding device may have a chuck tempering device in the form of a heating element 450, 451 (¶136; Fig. 27).
As to claim 19, the method of claim 8 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that both the upper and lower chucks have respective chucks have respective vacuum ports 403, 423 for holding a first and second respective gas pressure at the chuck surfaces for holding the substrates during the movement of said chucks during lamination (61-76, Fig. 12), such that the incident angle between the substrates is split evening by the final flat plane of the substrates (Fig. 23).
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP 2015103757) and Wagenleitner et al. (US 20190019678) as applied to claims 8-10, 12 and 19 above, and further in view of McMillin et al. (US 5835334).
As to claim 11, the method of claim 10 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose whether the first and second chucks may have chuck tempering channels for circulating a fluid from a chuck tempering device to said channels to control the temperature of the chucks. McMillin discloses a variable temperature chuck (Abstract). McMillin discloses that it is known and conventional to provide chuck tempering channels 6a for circulating a fluid from a chuck tempering device 22 to said channels to provide control the temperature of a chuck on top of the heating elements used in the chuck (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to modify the method D1 to include the chuck tempering channels with chuck tempering device of McMillan and would have been motivated to do so because one of ordinary skill would recognize that the addition of said channels would allow for the more precise control of the temperature of the chucks as desired. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the chuck tempering channel system of McMillan in the method taught by D1 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means of precisely controlling the temperatures of the chuck as desired. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 17, the method of claim 8 is taught as seen above. Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 11 above. McMillin discloses that the chuck is provided with a temperature sensor so as to measure the temperature of the chuck (C5, L33-50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a temperature sensor in the chucks and would have been motivated to do so because McMillan teaches that this allows for the measurement and control of the temperature of said chuck.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP 2015103757) and Wagenleitner et al. (US 20190019678) as applied to claims 8-10, 12 and 19 above, and further in view of Shaikh et al. (US 20190062918).
As to claim 14, the method of claim 8 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fails to specifically teach or disclose that either the first or second chucks have respective pressure ports to supply a tempered gas to the substrates. Shaikh discloses a deposition system for wafer substrates (Abstract; Fig. 1A, 1B, 5B). Shaikh discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to supply upper and lower chucks in a lamination apparatus with respective gas pressure ports 108, 112 (Id.). Shaikh teaches that the incorporation of said ports allows for the temperature stabilization of the wafers during processing (¶55). This would require that the gas enter at a different temperature, i.e. “tempered”, relative to the materials processed to achieved the desired temperature stabilization taught by Shaikh. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of D1 to include the use of respective gas pressure ports in the respective chucks and would have been motivated to do so because Shaikh teaches that said gas ports allows for a temperature stabilization step to be performed on the substrates to be laminated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 18 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:
As to claim 15, none of the prior art teaches or discloses a lamination method which uses first and second chucks with respective first and second gases supplied through respective first and second pressure ports, wherein said gasses pass through a gas tempering device, wherein the gas directed to the first pressure port and the second pressure port passes through a common gas tempering material of the gas tempering device, in particular the temperature of the common gas tempering material being controlled as currently claimed.
As to claim 16, none of the prior art teaches the recited gas temperature sensors at the first and second pressure ports in the first and second respective chucks as currently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that D1 (JP 2015103757) fails to teach or discloses that the first and second chucks are moved relative to one another towards each other at least until the first and second substrates are in contact with one another. Applicant argues that D1 fails to meet the recited claim language since it discloses that the upper and lower chucks are in a state of no relative movement when the substrates are bonded to one another. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, D1 clearly discloses in Fig. 18-23 that the lower chuck 231 is moved towards the upper chuck 230 to a position to where the first W1 and second W2 substrates are in contact with one another (Fig. 21-23). Applicant has not used any claim language that the chucks are moved relative to one another until the substrates are pressed against one another to make contact, only that the chucks are moved relative to one another to where the substrates may make contact with one another which is disclosed by D1.
As to Applicants arguments that D1 fails to teach or disclose that at least one of the chucks can have a pressure port with gas supplied to it, as seen in the rejection above, Wagenleitner et al. (US 20190019678) discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to provide chuck with a pressure port with gas supplied to it so as to force a substrate away from the chuck in a substrate bonding process.
Applicant argues that Shaikh fails to teach or disclose the application of two gases with respective gas pressures to deflect two substrates to one another, this claim limitation is optional but not necessarily required by claim 8. Claim 8 only requires that at least one of the chucks supply a gas at a respective gas pressure.
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 CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
