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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 - 7 in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 - 42 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 6, 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2015/0001681) in view of Kannaka et al (US 2013/0139950) and Watanabe et al (US 2015/0059644).
With regards to claim 1, Lu teaches a substrate processing method of applying a filler to a laminated substrate having a first substrate and a second substrate bonded to each other (Abstract) comprising applying the filler to a gap between the edge portion of the first substrate and the edge portion of the second substrate of the laminated substrate under determined applying condition (as seen in Figure 1 items 104, 106, 107 and 108).
Lu fails to explicitly disclose that the method comprises measuring surface shapes of an edge portion and determining an applying condition for the filler to be applied.
Kannaka discloses a method for bonding wafers (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Lu, where Kim discloses measuring the surface shapes of an edge portion of the first substrate and an edge portion of the second substrate (Figure 4, Figures 7A – 7F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Kannaka’s sensor in Lu’s method. The rationale being that, as stated by Kannaka, it allows for the apparatus to accurately measure and position the wafers (paragraph 4).
Lu and Kannaka fail to explicitly states that the measurement determines the applying condition for a filler.
Watanabe discloses an apparatus for applying a coating (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Lu and Kim, where Watanabe teaches determining an applying condition for a coating based on results of measuring a surface (paragraphs 47, 49, 51 and 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the applying conditions for the filler to be applied to the laminated substrate based on results of measuring of the surface shapes, as suggested by Watanabe, in Lu’s method as modified by Kannaka. The rationale being that, as stated by Watanabe, it allows for a uniform coating in view of changing surfaces (paragraphs 10 and 11).
With regards to claims 2 and 3, the teachings of Lu, Kannaka and Watanabe are presented above. Additionally, Kannaka teaches that the shapes of the edge portion of the first and second substrates are measured before and after the substrates have bonded (as seen in Figures 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Lu, Kannaka and Watanabe are presented above. Additionally, Kannaka teaches that the surface shapes of the edge portion of the first substrate and the second substrate to be measured are specified by at least one of a dimension of the edge portion of the first substrate in a radial direction of the first substrate and a dimension of the edge portion of the second substrate in a radial direction of the second substrate (paragraphs 47, 48 and 52).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Lu, Kannaka and Watanabe are presented above. Additionally, Watanabe teaches that the applying condition includes a distances between the laminated substrate and the emitting port (paragraph 47).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Lu, Kannaka and Watanabe are presented above. Additionally, Lu teaches that the method further comprises curing the filler after applying the filler to the laminated substrate (paragraph 27). While Lu states that thermal process is performed for post curing (paragraph 27), Lu, Kannaka and Watanabe fail to explicitly disclose that hot air is performed to cure the filler which would require applying wind pressure and temperature of the hot air as applying conditions. Yet one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that application of hot air is well known in the art and would require adjusting the air pressure and the temperature of the hot air in order to control the curing the process.
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Lu, Kannaka and Watanabe are presented above. Additionally, Lu teaches that the application of the filler is performed while rotating the laminated substrate through a stepper motor (paragraph 13), which would require adjusting the rotation speed of the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746