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 .
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.
1. 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.
2. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0373274; hereafter Han) in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2018/0158796; hereafter Otsuka) and Wang et al. (US 2020/0371046; hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, 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 (“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. 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). 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 apparatus to make the first and second vacuum zones arranged in a fragmented ring pattern as suggested by Otsuka in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of a uniform bonding wave.
Han does not teach of a chamber and associated limitations. Wang teaches of placing a bonding apparatus within a chamber (bonding chamber- 100) in which includes first wafer chuck (first wafer chuck- 12; [0016]) is advantageous as the environmental parameters can be controlled ([0020]). 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 bonding apparatus of Han in the chamber of Wang for the advantage of environmental control.
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches that the distance sensors are configured to measure the displacement of their first deformable plate ([0087]). While this does not directly measure the local distance between the first and second wafer, if the positions of the chucks and widths of the wafers are known, the information gathered can be configured to measure a local distance between the first wafer and the second wafer.
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, Otsuka, and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morel (NPL Scientific Paper- “Spectra Low Coherence Interferometry: A Complete Analysis of the Detection System and the Signal Processing”; NPL included with Office Action; dated 2012).
Regarding claim 2, Han does not teach that the distance sensors are low-coherence interferometry infrared sensors. Morel teaches that low-coherence interferometers are used to obtain distance values in high resolution in a great diversity of materials (pg. 1 para. 1). Their experimental example involves an infrared light source, which makes it a low-coherence infrared interferometry sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed method to substitute the distance sensors of Huang with the low-coherence interferometry infrared sensors of Morel for the advantage obtaining high-resolution distance measurements.
4. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, Otsuka, and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (US 10,553,565) as evidenced by LiveScience (NPL Webpage- “What is Infrared?”; NPL included with Office Action; dated 2/27/2019).
Regarding claim 4, Han does not teach that the second wafer chuck further comprises a light source with an output wavelength larger than 1.1 µm. 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 (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. In order for this monitoring module to work the first wafer chuck must be a transparent material to infrared (col. 7 lines 30-42). 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 apparatus to include the alignment monitoring device and consequential quartz wafer chuck of Guo in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of better alignment and placement of the wafers.
Gao does not specifically state that the light source has an output wavelength larger than 1.1 µm. However, by definition of the term “infrared light” this implies a light between the range of 0.76 and 1,000 micrometers. This range overlaps the range claimed by Applicant. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. The values of stated infrared light are evidenced by LiveScience, which teaches such values (pg. 2 para. 3).
Regarding claim 5, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, Han teaches that the distance sensors are mounted on the first wafer chuck as an alternative to being mounted in the second wafer as shown in Figure 9 ([0087]). In Figure 9 the distance sensors (bonding propagation detector- 440) are mounted to a second surface of the second chuck opposite of the first surface of the second chuck. If placed on the first wafer chuck instead as taught by Han, then the distance sensors are mounted on a second surface of the first wafer chuck opposite the first surface of the first wafer chuck.
Regarding claim 6, in applying Guo as in claim 4, Guo teaches that the first wafer chuck should transparent material to infrared (col. 7 lines 30-42).
Regarding claim 7, in applying Guo as in claim 4, Guo suggests quartz as a material (col. 7 lines 30-34).
5. Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Guo.
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 (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 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 scopes disposed in such a way to be adjacent to the push pin in the second wafer chuck. It is noted that it is optimal if the first wafer chuck is a transparent material (col. 7 lines 30-42). 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 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 claim 13, Han teaches that the plurality of infrared light sensors are distance sensors (“vertical-direction displacement”- [0087]).
6. 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.
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 in 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.
7. 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; 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.
8. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of 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 that the first vacuum zone and the second vacuum zone are spaced apart from the push pin by a same first distance. 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 ([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 ([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.
9. Claims 18 and 20 are 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 Guo.
Regarding claim 18, Han does not teach that the first wafer chuck is made of quartz. 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 (top scopes- 122 and 124; col. 8 lines 6-11; see Figure 1), and in order for this monitoring module to work the first wafer chuck must be a transparent material and suggests quartz (col. 7 lines 30-42). 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 apparatus to include the alignment monitoring device and consequential quartz wafer chuck of Guo in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of better alignment and placement of the wafers.
Regarding claim 20, Han does not teach of an infrared light source and associated limitations. 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 scopes disposed in such a way to be adjacent to 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 device of Guo in the apparatus of Han for the advantage of better alignment and placement of the wafers.
10. 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.
Conclusion
11. 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