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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz et al (US 2018/0076037) in view of Wang et al (2015/0358558).
With respect to Claim 1, Kurz et al discloses a method comprising: bonding a first semiconductor wafer to a second semiconductor wafer (Figures 1a -Figure 1j); during the bonding, emitting light (Figure 1f, 12) toward a bonding interface between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor wafer; receiving, by camera ( visual or infrared cameras, paragraph 65), data during the bonding, the data including light reflected by or transmitted through at least one of the first and second semiconductor wafers, the light received by the camera representing a bonding wave of the bonding between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor wafer (paragraphs 64-68 and 200-207); and determining, by wafer bonding defect detection circuitry (paragraph 67), the presence of a bonding defect based on the acquired data. See Figures 1a -1j and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 13, 18-25, 64-68, 105-126, 172 and 200-207.
Kurz et al differs from the claims at hand in that Kurz et al does not explicitly disclose a video camera, and generally discloses cameras.
Wang et al pertains to wafer packaging and bonding, and discloses that the use of both still and video cameras is well known in the art. See paragraphs 27 and 51.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a video camera in the process of Kurz et al, for its known benefit as a camera in wafer bonding processes, as disclosed by Wang et al. The use of video cameras in wafer bonding processes would have been prima facie obvious in view of the combined references.
With respect to Claim 2, the combined references make obvious “wherein the determining the presence of a bonding defect includes: accessing past video data stored in a wafer bonding video database, the past video data associated with bonding waves during bonding between two semiconductor wafers and with a plurality of bonding defects; and comparing the acquired video data with the past video data”, as the use of video data from previous processes is well known in the art for its known benefit in obtaining successful results with known data. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact.
With respect to Claim 3, Kurz et al discloses wherein the determining the presence of a bonding defect includes determining a defect due to a non-uniform bonding wave propagation speed. See paragraph 172; and Figure 4 and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 4, Kurz et al discloses controlling a bonding pressure applied to bond the first semiconductor wafer to the second semiconductor wafer in response to the determining the presence of a bonding defect. See paragraphs 71-78; and Figure 4 and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 5, the combined references makes obvious controlling a pressure, within a bonding chamber in which the bonding the first semiconductor wafer to the second semiconductor wafer is performed, in response to the determining the presence of a bonding defect. See paragraph 71-78; and Figure 4 and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 6, the combined references make obvious wherein the bonding the first semiconductor wafer to the second semiconductor wafer including at least one of: bonding two unpatterned semiconductor wafers to one another, bonding two patterned semiconductor wafers to one another, or bonding an unpatterned semiconductor wafer to a patterned semiconductor wafer. See Figure 1a and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 7, and the limitation “ stopping the bonding between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor wafer in response to determining the presence of a bonding defect”, Official Notice is taken by the Examiner that stopping a defective process is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references make obvious “adjusting at least one operational parameter of a pre-bonding process tool in response to the determining the presence of a bonding defect”. See paragraph 71-78; and Figure 4 and corresponding text of Kurz et al.
With respect to Claim 9, Kurz et al discloses wherein the light received by the video camera is light transmitted through the first semiconductor wafer and transmitted through the second semiconductor wafer. See paragraphs 64-68, and Figure 1f and corresponding text of Kuz et al.
With respect to Claim 10, Kurz et al discloses wherein the light received by the video camera is reflected by at least one of the first semiconductor wafer or the second semiconductor wafer. See paragraphs 64-68, and Figure 1f and corresponding text of Kuz et al.
With respect to Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, with respect to the limitation, “ receiving, by video camera, defect video data during the bonding, the defect video data including light reflected by or transmitted through at least one of the first and second semiconductor wafers, the light reflected or transmitted at the unbonded region or the defect region received by the video camera representing a bonding state between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor wafer at the unbonded region or the defect region”, the limitation is disclosed by Figures 1a-1 and 4, and corresponding text of Kurz et al.
With respect to Claim 12, the limitation “wherein the light received by the video camera representing a bonding wave is brighter than the light received by the video camera representing a bonding state between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor at the unbonded region or the defect region” is made obvious as the reaction conditions are disclosed by the cited references.
With respect to Claim 13, Kurz et al discloses the limitation “ wherein the determining, by the wafer bonding detection circuitry, the presence of a bonding defect during the bonding including a video pattern recognition process”. See paragraphs 64-68 and 200-207.
With respect to Claim 14, the combined references make obvious the limitation, “wherein the video pattern recognition process includes the wafer bonding defect detention circuitry detecting the bonding defect based, at least in part, on past video stored in a wafer bonding video database”, as the use of video data from previous processes is well known in the art for its known benefit in obtaining successful results with known data. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact.
With respect to Claim 15, and the limitation “further comprising determining an action to be take in response to detecting the bonding defect, the action to be taken including at least one of: stopping a current bonding process, performing a rework process on wafers undergoing bonding”, Official Notice is taken by the Examiner that stopping a defective process is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected for the reasons as discussed with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, Kurz et al discloses the limitation “ “expanding the bonding between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor wafer along a bond wave”. See Figures 1a-1j and 4, and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 64-68 and 200-207.
With respect to Claim 17, Kurz et al discloses the limitation “wherein the determining, by the wafer bonding defect detection circuitry, the presence of a bonding defect during the bonding further includes a video pattern recognition process. See paragraphs 64-68 and 200-207.
With respect to Claim 18, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the video pattern recognition process includes the wafer bonding detection circuitry detecting the bonding defect based, at least in part on past video stored in a wafer bonding video database”, as the use of video data from previous processes is well known in the art for its known benefit in obtaining successful results with known data. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact.
With respect to Claim 19, and the limitation “further comprising determining an action to be take in response to detecting the bonding defect, the action to be taken including at least one of: stopping a current bonding process, performing a rework process on wafers undergoing bonding”, Official Notice is taken by the Examiner that stopping a defective process is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 20, Kurz et al disclose transmitting the light through a chuck supporting the first semiconductor wafer or the second semiconductor wafer. See Figure 1f and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 64-67.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,815,471. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,815,471 discloses with respect to present Claim 1, a method comprising: bonding a first semiconductor wafer to a second semiconductor wafer; during the bonding, emitting light toward a bonding interface between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor wafer; receiving, by video camera, video data during the bonding, the video data including light reflected by or transmitted through at least one of the first and second semiconductor wafers, the light received by the video camera representing a bonding wave of the bonding between the first semiconductor wafer and the second semiconductor wafer; and determining, by wafer bonding defect detection circuitry, the presence of a bonding defect based on the acquired video data. See Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,815,471.
US Patent No. 11,815,471 differs from present Claim l in that US Patent No. 11,815,471 additionally requires the video camera to be infrared.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at present Claim 1, as the omission of an element where the function of the element is not needed would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex Parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (BPAI 1989).
With respect to Claims 2-20, present Claims 2-20 each individually correspond respectively to Claims 2-20 of US Patent No. 11,815,471.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
August 2, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights