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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II (claims 8-19) in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant contends that the Group II method claims are particularly suited to the Group I apparatus. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the restriction, the recited invention does not make a contribution over the prior art of Taga et al. (US 20140202386). Furthermore, the special technical feature of Invention I, wherein the first and second chucks are thermally isolated from respective support structures is even recited in Invention II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 § 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 15 and 19 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the gas is tempered" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first pressure port and the second pressure port" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, it is presumed that claim 15 is meant to be dependent upon claim 13 which first mentions respective first and second gases which pass through first and second respective ports in respective first and second chucks.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first gas pressure and second gas pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 8-10, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (JP 2015103757).
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; ¶16, 35, 109).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP 2015103757) 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) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP 2015103757) in view of Shaikh et al. (US 20190062918).
As to claim 13, the method of claim 8 is taught as seen above. D1 fails to specifically teach or disclose that the first and second chucks have respective pressure ports to supply respective first and second gases to press substrates towards one another as currently claimed. 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). 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.
As to claim 14, the method of claim 13 is taught as seen above. The method of the above references as combined 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights