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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. Applicant’s arguments are directed to limitations not previously considered and are moot in view of the updated rejections and allowability statements below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
2. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 states “an infrared light source beside the push pin, and wherein the infrared light source overlaps the push pin”. It is unclear in what way the infrared light source overlaps the push pin and as far the Examiner is aware, the Specification filed 07/26/2024 does not mention an “overlap” anywhere, not does Applicant cite where in their Specification they found the “overlap’ limitation that they added to claim 21. For these reasons, it is the Examiner’s opinion that claim 21 contains new matter and a 112(a) rejection is necessary.
A Note on Claim 14- claim 14 adds the limitation “the infrared light source horizontally overlaps the push pin”. While similar to claim 21, wherein the Specification does not mention of any overlap, the Examiner noticed in Figure 4A that the infrared light source- 460 is adjacently placed with push pin- 412, and thus in the flat plane of Figure 4A they would be horizontally overlapping, but not vertically overlapping, and thus Applicant has at least implicit support for this limitation and no 112(a) rejection is necessary.
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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0373274; previously presented; hereafter Han) in view of Guo (US 10,553,565; previously presented).
Regarding claim 8, Han teaches a wafer bonding system ([0004]) comprising a first wafer chuck (first deformable plate- 220), a mounting structure (first base- 210) on a bottom surface of the first wafer chuck ([0078]; see Figure 9), and a second wafer chuck (second deformable plate- 320; [0079]), that as seen in Figure 9 is over a top surface of the first wafer chuck. A push pin extends through the second wafer chuck (bonding initiation member- 450; [0080]). The second wafer chuck comprises a first vacuum zone (outer space- 342), and a second vacuum zone (inner space- 341), the pressures of which are independently controlled by a vacuum pump (second vacuum pump- 340; [0079]). This vacuum pump is then controlled by a controller (controller- 410) the vacuum levels being set by a bonding propagation detector (bonding propagation detector- 410; [0092]). The bonding propagation detector is a plurality of sensors ([0084]) that can be disposed in the mounting structure and are displacement sensors ([0087]), and it is suggested that displacement sensors can be infrared light sensors ([0060]-[0061]).
Han does not teach that an infrared light source is disposed adjacent the push pin and that the first wafer chuck is at least partially transparent to infrared light. Guo teaches of an alignment monitoring module that uses infrared light (col. 7 line 58- col. 8 line 5), these modules comprise a top and bottom scope, the top scope being disposed proximate to the second chuck (top scopes- 122 and 124; col. 8 lines 6-11; see Figure 1). The infrared CCD of the top scope is an infrared light source. The straight down alignment in the context of Han makes the top scope disposed in such a way to be adjacent to the push pin in the second wafer chuck. It would be spaced at some first distance from the push pin. Guo teaches that it is optimal if the first wafer chuck is a transparent material (col. 7 lines 30-42). The advantage of Guo’s monitoring module is better alignment and placement of the wafers (col. 8 lines 17-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed apparatus to include the alignment monitoring device and transparent wafer chuck of Guo in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of better alignment and placement of the wafers.
Regarding the relation of the infrared light source and the first vacuum zone, as seen in Figure 9 of Han, one of the sensors (the center-most bonding propagation detector- 440) is between push pin (bonding initiation member- 450) and the first vacuum zone (outer space- 324) on the second wafer chuck (second deformable plate- 320). As previously noted, the sensor can be on the mounting structure in Han ([0087]) and in applying Guo, the infrared light source would now on the second wafer chuck in an identical position in a top-down view, and thus would be placed at the location of the sensor of Han in Figure 9. Figure 9 shows a shorter second distance between Han’s sensor and the first vacuum zone compared to a larger first distance between Han’s sensor and the push pin, however specific distances are not mentioned. If Han’s sensor were moved, in certain positions the first distance would be smaller than the second distance, and therefore the only difference between the combined references and the claimed invention is the positioning of Han’s sensor. This constitutes a “Rearrangement of Parts” which MPEP 2144.04.VI.C teaches is a routine expedient- “In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)-(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to place the infrared light source of Guo at a position wherein a first vacuum zone of the plurality of vacuum zones is spaced apart from the infrared light source by a second distance greater than the first distance in Han as a obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Han teaches that the plurality of infrared light sensors are distance sensors (“vertical-direction displacement”- [0087]).
5. Claims 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and
Guo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2018/0158796; previously presented; hereafter Otsuka).
Regarding claim 9, Han does not teach that the vacuum zones are arranged in a fragmented ring encircling the push pin and the infrared light source. Otsuka teaches that their second wafer chuck (upper chuck- 140) has a plurality of vacuum zones (suction portions- 172) arranged in a fragmented ring pattern (see Figure 7) that encircles the majority of the chuck including the center of the second wafer chuck (through- hole- 176) wherein is placed a push pin (actuator part- 191; [0068]-[0069]) and sensors- 175, which in the context of Han and Guo, would be the infrared light source. Otsuka teaches that the advantage of such an arrangement is precise control of vacuum zones to allow for a uniform bonding wave ([0084]-[0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to put the plurality of vacuum zones in a fragmented ring pattern that encircles the push pin and the infrared light source as suggested by Otsuka in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of a uniform bonding wave.
Regarding claim 10, Han does not teach that the vacuum zones are arranged in concentric fragmented rings encircling the push pin and the infrared light source. Otsuka teaches that their second wafer chuck (upper chuck- 140) has a plurality of vacuum zones that are arranged in concentric fragmented rings (first suction portion- 172 and second suction portion- 173 as seen in Figure 7), that encircles the center of the second wafer chuck (through- hole- 176) wherein is placed a push pin (actuator part- 191; [0068]-[0069]). In one embodiment, Otsuka suggests that the sensors are encircled within the concentric fragmented rings (sensors- 175b; [0133] which omits sensors 175a; sensors 175b are shown encircled by both vacuum zones 172 and 173 in Figure 16). Otsuka teaches that the advantage of such an arrangement is precise control of vacuum zones to allow for feed-forward control ([0132]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to put the plurality of vacuum zones in a pattern of concentric fragmented rings that encircling the push pin and the infrared light source as suggested by Otsuka in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of feed-forward control.
Regarding claim 12, Han does not teach that the infrared light sensors are uniformly distributed in angular directions with respect to the top surface of the first wafer chuck. Otsuka teaches that placing sensors in uniformly distributed angular directions (concentric relationship with consistent angles) with respect to the wafer chuck surfaces provides the advantage of being able to properly detect and control the bonding wave during bonding ([0079]-[0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to arrange the infrared light sensors of Han in uniform distribution in angular directions with respect to the top surface of the first wafer chuck as suggested by Otsuka for the advantage of being able to properly detect and control the bonding wave during bonding.
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and Guo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wagenleitner et al. (US 2019/0019678; previously presented; hereafter Wagenleitner).
Regarding claim 11, while Han teaches that there is a plurality of sensors ([0084]), Han does not teach that the sensors are uniformly distributed in radial directions. Wagenleitner teaches that distance sensors should be distributed symmetrically and uniformly on a substrate holder ([0068]) for the advantage of adjustment and control from empirical information ([0069]). Wagenleitner puts their sensors on studs (studs- 7; [0136]), which in an embodiment shown in Figure 2c are arranged uniformly in radial directions with respect to the top surface of the substrate holder ([0144]; see Figure 2c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to uniformly distribute the sensors in radial directions with respect to the top surface of the first wafer chuck of Han as suggested by Wagenleitner for the advantage of being able to adjust and control bonding with empirical information.
7. Claims 14-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Guo and Otsuka.
Regarding claim 14, Han teaches a wafer bonding system ([0004]) comprising a first wafer chuck (first deformable plate- 220), a mounting structure (first base- 210) on a bottom surface of the first wafer chuck ([0078]; see Figure 9), and a second wafer chuck (second deformable plate- 320; [0079]), that as seen in Figure 9 is over a top surface of the first wafer chuck. A push pin extends through the second wafer chuck (bonding initiation member- 450; [0080]). The second wafer chuck comprises a first vacuum zone (inner space- 341) and a second vacuum zone (outer space- 342), the pressures of which are independently controlled by a vacuum pump (second vacuum pump- 340; [0079]). This vacuum pump is then controlled by a controller (controller- 410) the vacuum levels being set by a bonding propagation detector (bonding propagation detector- 410; [0092]). The bonding propagation detector is a plurality of sensors ([0084]) that can be disposed in the mounting structure and are displacement sensors ([0087]), and it is suggested that displacement sensors can be infrared sensors ([0060]-[0061]).
Han does not teach of an infrared light source and associated limitations. Guo teaches of alignment monitoring modules that uses infrared light (col. 7 line 58- col. 8 line 5), these modules comprise a top and bottom scope; the top scope being disposed proximate to the second chuck (top scopes- 122 and 124; col. 8 lines 6-11; see Figure 1). The infrared CCD of the top scope is an infrared light source. The straight down alignment in the context of Han, makes the top scopes disposed in such a way to be adjacent to, and at the right orientation horizontally overlaps, the push pin in the second wafer chuck. The advantage of such a monitoring module is better alignment and placement of the wafers (col. 8 lines 17-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed method to include the alignment monitoring devices of Guo in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of better alignment and placement of the wafers.
Han does not teach that the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone are spaced apart from the push pin by a same first distance in a top-down view. Otsuka teaches that their second wafer chuck (upper chuck- 140) has a plurality of vacuum zones (suction portions- 172) at least a first and second vacuum zone which are spaced apart from a center of the second wafer chuck by a same distance in a top-down view ([0061]-[0064]; arrangement shown in Figure 7), the pressure levels of each being independently controlled ([0141]-[0142] teaches independent vacuums for each vacuum zone, with vacuum pumps 172b being applied to the first suction zones), and the center of the second wafer chuck (through- hole- 176) is for a push pin (actuator part- 191; [0068]-[0069]). Otsuka teaches that the advantage of such an arrangement is precise control of vacuum zones, which may include increasing the pressure level of a first vacuum zone and decreasing the pressure level of a second vacuum zone to allow for a uniform bonding wave ([0084]-[0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed apparatus to include the plurality of equally spaced vacuum zones as suggested in the apparatus of Otsuka involving a first and second vacuum zones that are spaced apart from a center of the second wafer chuck by a same distance in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of a uniform bonding wave.
Regarding claim 15, in applying Otsuka as in claim 14, Otsuka teaches that different vacuum zones are connected to different vacuum pumps ([0141]-[0142]).
Regarding claim 16, in applying Otsuka as in claim 14, Otsuka further teaches of a plurality of vacuum zones (second suction zone- 173), which includes a third and fourth vacuum zone that are spaced apart from the push pin by a same second distance in a top-down view ([0065]). As seen in Figure 7, this second distance (distance between any second suction zone- 173 and through-hole- 176) is smaller than the first distance (distance between any second suction zone- 172 and through-hole- 176).
Regarding claim 17, in applying Otsuka as in claim 14, Otsuka teaches that the third vacuum zone and the fourth vacuum zone are connected to different vacuum pumps that are independently set ([0141]). The vacuum zones are controlled by a controller that is using input from the plurality sensors ([0080]), that in the context of Han, are infrared sensors.
Regarding claim 18, in applying Guo as in claim 14, Guo teaches that in order for their monitoring module to work the first wafer chuck must be a transparent material and suggests quartz (col. 7 lines 30-42).
Regarding claim 22, Regarding the relation of the infrared light source and the first vacuum zone, as seen in Figure 9 of Han, one of the sensors (the center-most bonding propagation detector- 440) is between push pin (bonding initiation member- 450) and the first vacuum zone (outer space- 324) on the second wafer chuck (second deformable plate- 320). As previously noted, the sensor can be on the mounting structure in Han ([0087]) and in applying Guo, the infrared light source would now be on the second wafer chuck in an identical position in a top-down view, and thus would be placed at the location of the sensor of Han in Figure 9. If the outer vacuum zone of Otsuka is interpreted as the first vacuum zone, Figure 9 shows a shorter third distance between Han’s sensor and the first vacuum zone compared to a larger first distance between Han’s sensor and the push pin, however specific distances are not mentioned. If Han’s sensor were moved, in certain positions the first distance would be smaller than the second distance, and therefore the only difference between the combined references and the claimed invention is the positioning of Han’s sensor. This constitutes a “Rearrangement of Parts” which MPEP 2144.04.VI.C teaches is a routine expedient- “In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)-(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to place the infrared light source of Guo at a position wherein a first vacuum zone of the plurality of vacuum zones is spaced apart from the infrared light source by a third distance greater than a second distance in Han as an obvious matter of design choice.
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and Otsuka as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wagenleitner.
Regarding claim 19, while Han teaches that there is a plurality of sensors ([0084]), Han does not teach that the sensors are uniformly distributed in radial and angular directions. Wagenleitner teaches that distance sensors should be distributed symmetrically and uniformly on a substrate holder ([0068]) for the advantage of adjustment and control from empirical information ([0069]). Wagenleitner puts their sensors on studs (studs- 7; [0136]), which in an embodiment shown in Figure 2c are arranged uniformly in both radial and angular directions with respect to the top surface of the substrate holder ([0144]; see Figure 2c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to uniformly distribute the sensors in both radial and angular
directions with respect to the top surface of the first wafer chuck of Han as suggested by Wagenleitner for the advantage of being able to adjust and control bonding with empirical information.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are allowed.
10. Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Han. Han teaches a wafer bonding system ([0004]) comprising a first wafer chuck (first bonding chuck- 200), that has a first surface to support a first wafer (wafer S1; [0078]), a second wafer chuck (second bonding chuck- 300) that has a first surface to support a second wafer (wafer S2; [0079]), that as seen in Figure 9 faces the first surface of the first wafer chuck. The second wafer chuck and the first wafer chuck are movable relative to each other via the chuck movement mechanism (420; [0083]). The surface of the second wafer chuck comprises a first vacuum zone (inner space- 341) and a second vacuum zone (outer space- 342), the pressures of which are independently controlled by a vacuum pump (second vacuum pump- 340; [0079]). This vacuum pump is then controlled by a controller (controller- 410) the vacuum levels being set by a bonding propagation detector (bonding propagation detector- 410; [0092]). The bonding propagation detector is a plurality of sensors ([0084]) that can be mounted on the first wafer chuck and are distance sensors by detecting the displacement of the first wafer chuck (“vertical-direction displacement”- [0087]).
Han does not teach that the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone are arranged in a fragmented ring pattern. Han does not teach of a chamber and associated limitations.
Han does not teach or render obvious that the plurality of sensors are configures to measure intensity peaks at interfaces between mediums to determine a local distance between the first wafer and the second wafer.
11. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm 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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
