DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 8-10, 12-13 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended. New claims 14-25 have been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the Double Patenting and the 35 USC and 112 rejections of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 6/02/2026. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
3- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §102 and 103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action.
4- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
5- 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.
6- Claims 8-9, 18-22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theuss et al. (PGPUB No. 2009/0309191, cited by Applicants)
As to claims 8-9, Theuss teaches a device, and its corresponding method of use, for bonding a first substrate and a second substrate, (Abstract, ¶ 52, Figs. 1-15), comprising:
a metrology device configured to measure at least one substrate surface of at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate before and after compensation of distortions of the at least one substrate surface (step 42, 236, 304; using 283/34 or 210/214);
a laser configured to generate at least one local action on the at least one substrate surface using electromagnetic radiation to compensate for the distortions based on a measurement obtained by the metrology device (¶ 25, 40 for ex.; laser 30/50 being focused locally on spots 52/112 of surface 24/106);
a bonding device configured to bond the first substrate and the second substrate together after the metrology device measures the at least one substrate surface following the compensation of the distortions (¶ 52 or step 314 in Fig. 15).
(claim 8) remeasuring theat least one substrate surface; and after remeasuring the at least one substrate surface bonding the first substrate and the second substrate (¶ 38, 40-41 for ex; reducing the measured curvature necessarily suggests continuous monitoring of the curvature and ascertaining its reduction after the multiple scans of laser 30).
(claim 18) wherein compensating for the distortions influences a bonding wave during bonding such that the bonding wave propagates symmetrically, concentrically, or both with respect to a contact point between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 5; ¶ 37; the bonding process appears to necessarily be produced in a symmetrical or radial fashion, i.e. accompanying mechanical waves between substrates upon their contact and correction the distortions directly influences the bonding process).
(claims 19-20) wherein compensating for the distortions causes at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate to have a convex curvature toward a bond interface and (Claim 20) wherein compensating for the distortions causes the at least one substrate surface, during bonding, to have a shape corresponding to a portion of a sphere, a parabola, or an ellipsoid (Figs. 3-4, 8-9); and wherein a speed of a bonding wave diminishes toward an edge of at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate (appears necessary to a correct bonding process without the risk of splitting the bonding at the edges).
(claim 21) wherein distortions of at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate are compensated such that regions of the first substrate and the second substrate to be bonded together are congruent or have deviations from one another that are reduced by the compensating (Abstract, ¶ 23, 40 for ex.)
(claim 22) wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are hybrid substrates comprising electrical regions and dielectric regions; and wherein the electrical regions comprise metallic surfaces of through-silicon vias (Abstract, ¶ 1-2, 23-26, 34-35, 40, 44-45 for ex.; semiconductors comprise the claimed regions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8- Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theuss in view of Aida (PGPUB No. 20130082358)
As to claim 10, Theuss teaches the device according to claim 9.
Theuss does not teach expressly wherein the metrology device comprises an interferometer.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Aida teaches a device, and its corresponding method of use, for manufacturing multilayer films (Abstract, Figs. 1-11), wherein the metrology device comprises an interferometer (¶ 257, 297, 327, 354 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Theuss in view of Aida’s suggestions so that the metrology device comprises an interferometer, with the advantage of effectively and precisely calculating the warpage of the substrates.
9- Claims 12-17, 23-25 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theuss in view of Inoue (PGPUB No. 20140287538)
As to amended claims 12-17, 23-25, Theuss teaches the method of claim 8.
Moreover, Theuss teaches (Claim 23) further comprising a controller configured to: control the metrology device to obtain a first measurement of the at least one substrate surface before compensation of the distortions (Controller 34 controlling devices 28 and 30).
Theuss does not teach expressly the measuring produces a first distortion chart representing a deviation of an actual state of the at least one substrate surface from an intended state, and wherein the remeasuring produces a second distortion chart representing a deviation of the actual state of the at least one substrate surface from the intended state after compensating for the distortions; (Claim 13) further comprising calculating, based on the first distortion chart, compensations for transforming the actual state of the at least one substrate surface toward the intended state; (claim 14) wherein calculating the compensations comprises using one or more of a mechanical model, a model based on experimentally acquired data, or a finite element method simulation; (claim 15) wherein the at least one substrate surface is measured during the compensating, and wherein the compensating is monitored and regulated using a control loop; (claims 16/24) further comprising: determining, based on the second distortion chart, whether the at least one substrate surface continues to exhibit distortions; and when the at least one substrate surface continues to exhibit distortions, repeating the compensating and the remeasuring before bonding the first substrate and the second substrate together; (claims 17/25) further comprising: determining an effect of the compensating based on a difference between the first distortion chart and the second distortion chart; and using the determined effect in a feedback loop to calibrate at least one parameter used to compensate for distortions of a subsequently processed substrate; (claim 23) the controller configured to: generate, based on the first measurement, a first distortion chart representing a deviation of an actual state of the at least one substrate surface from an intended state; calculate compensations for transforming the actual state toward the intended state based on the first distortion chart; control the laser, based on the first measurement, to generate the at least one local action; control the metrology device to obtain a second measurement of the at least one substrate surface after generation of the at least one local action; and generate, based on the second measurement, a second distortion chart representing a deviation of the actual state from the intended state after generation of the at least one local action.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Inoue teaches warp measurement and correction apparatus and method (Abstract, Figs. 1-9), the measuring produces a first distortion chart representing a deviation of an actual state of the at least one substrate surface from an intended state, and wherein the remeasuring produces a second distortion chart representing a deviation of the actual state of the at least one substrate surface from the intended state after compensating for the distortions; further comprising calculating, based on the first distortion chart, compensations for transforming the actual state of the at least one substrate surface toward the intended state; wherein the at least one substrate surface is measured during the compensating, and wherein the compensating is monitored and regulated using a control loop; further comprising: determining, based on the second distortion chart, whether the at least one substrate surface continues to exhibit distortions; and when the at least one substrate surface continues to exhibit distortions, repeating the compensating and the remeasuring before bonding the first substrate and the second substrate together (¶ 22-23, 56, 65-67 for ex; the repetitive measurements are suggested until an acceptable correction of the warp is reached. The use of charts, curves or data tables are known in data processing for comparison and calibration; ¶ 56, see MPEP ¶ 2143 Sect. I. B-D). As to claim 14, wherein calculating the compensations comprises using one or more of a mechanical model, a model based on experimentally acquired data, or a finite element method simulation (¶ 56; the use of calibration curves suggests using reference experimental data and mechanical models). As to claim 17, further comprising: determining an effect of the compensating based on a difference between the first distortion chart and the second distortion chart; and using the determined effect in a feedback loop to calibrate at least one parameter used to compensate for distortions of a subsequently processed substrate (¶56 and see rejection of claims 15-16 )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Theuss in view of Inoue’s suggestions so that the measuring produces a first distortion chart representing a deviation of an actual state of the at least one substrate surface from an intended state, and wherein the remeasuring produces a second distortion chart representing a deviation of the actual state of the at least one substrate surface from the intended state after compensating for the distortions; further comprising calculating, based on the first distortion chart, compensations for transforming the actual state of the at least one substrate surface toward the intended state; wherein calculating the compensations comprises using one or more of a mechanical model, a model based on experimentally acquired data, or a finite element method simulation; wherein the at least one substrate surface is measured during the compensating, and wherein the compensating is monitored and regulated using a control loop; further comprising: determining, based on the second distortion chart, whether the at least one substrate surface continues to exhibit distortions; and when the at least one substrate surface continues to exhibit distortions, repeating the compensating and the remeasuring before bonding the first substrate and the second substrate together; further comprising: determining an effect of the compensating based on a difference between the first distortion chart and the second distortion chart; and using the determined effect in a feedback loop to calibrate at least one parameter used to compensate for distortions of a subsequently processed substrate; the controller configured to: generate, based on the first measurement, a first distortion chart representing a deviation of an actual state of the at least one substrate surface from an intended state; calculate compensations for transforming the actual state toward the intended state based on the first distortion chart; control the laser, based on the first measurement, to generate the at least one local action; control the metrology device to obtain a second measurement of the at least one substrate surface after generation of the at least one local action; and generate, based on the second measurement, a second distortion chart representing a deviation of the actual state from the intended state after generation of the at least one local action, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the warpage calculations and corrections.
Relevant Prior art
US 20030160025 appears relevant to the use repetitive measurements and corrections of surface warps.
US 20060216025 appears to teach also most of the elements/steps of the claimed apparatus and method of use, but fails to disclose the instant invention as whole.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights