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 . 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites that the further piezoelectric material is dissimilar from the piezoelectric material of the piezoelectric material wafer, but then in claim 15 discloses the same materials as in claim 13 for the piezoelectric material, and claim 15 depends on claim 14. It is unclear how the materials can be same and dissimilar at the same time. For examination purposes, the materials are treated as the same.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (U.S PG Pub 20110227068A1), and Lee (U.S PG Pub 20170200648A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 16, Akiyama, drawn also to the art of bonding a wafer with a semiconductor substrate (Abstract; Title), discloses bonding [0012] a semiconductor substrate with a handle substrate i.e. wafer, that can be silicon, silicon dioxide, or sapphire [0029]. Akiyama discloses steps of plasma activation in air and UV treatment in air and discloses that one or both of the plasma treatment and the ozone treatment can be carried out [0069]. Akiyama also discloses then thermally annealing the assembly [0012]. Akiyama has not explicitly disclosed applying a pressure or mechanical load, however, this step is known from Lee.
Lee, drawn also to the art of manufacturing or bonding a substrate comprising a handle substrate and a semiconductor surface (Abstract), discloses thermocompression bonding to be a method of bonding the substrates [0086], and discloses that this is a known method of bonding substrates. Lee also discloses performing the treatments at a reduced pressure [0080-0084].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Akiyama, with the step of thermocompression bonding, as disclosed by Lee, to arrive at the instant invention, since as such this would merely involve a combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and such is held to be obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2143 I(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Akiyama as modified by Lee, discloses the instant limitations. Lee discloses a planarization i.e. polishing step which reduces the surface roughness to less than 1nm (thus forming an overlapping range with the instant range and obviating the range – see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). [0085-0086]. Lee discloses that such a step facilitates fusion bonding [0085.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of bonding the substrates with the step of polishing to reduce surface roughness, as disclosed by Lee, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to facilitate fusion bonding.
Regarding claim 3, Akiyama and Lee do not explicitly disclose the flow rate ratio of the oxygen to nitrogen, however, given that Akiyama discloses carrying out the treatments in air, and air is a ratio of approximately 70% nitrogen to 30% oxygen, it can be reasonably expected that the air in which the treatments are conducted would have the ratio of the flowrates as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Akiyama and Lee do not explicitly disclose the gas flow rate being the in the range claimed, however, the gas flow rate is a result effective variable, as the gas flow rate would have an effect on the surface treatments being performed, since both plasma treatment and UV ozone treatment require a flow of gas. As such, it would be within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the gas flow rate, in order to appropriately perform the surface treatments, and such is held to be obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Regarding claim 5, Akiyama discloses performing the treatments at a reduced pressure and so does Lee (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claims 6-9, Akiyama as modified by Lee discloses a rinsing process comprising megasonic DI water rinsing [0080-0082] of Lee. Regarding the order of the steps being performed as claimed in claims 8-9, such merely amounts to a rearrangement of method steps, and such is held to be obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 V (A)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Akiyama, with the rinsing step as disclosed by Lee, to facilitate surface activation [0081].
Regarding claims 10-11, the wavelength range as claimed is a known UV wavelength range and both Akiyama and Lee disclose performing UV treatment. Further, Akiyama and Lee both disclose thermal annealing taking place after the surface activation steps (see claim 1 rejection above), and thus, it can be reasonably expected that the temperature of the surface of the wafers is below 100C, since they are not heated during surface activation.
Regarding claim 12, the mechanical load is a result effective variable, since the pressure would affect cracking of the wafers during bonding, and it is within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the mechanical load to achieve appropriate bonding (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (U.S PG Pub 20110227068A1), and Lee (U.S PG Pub 20170200648A1 and Akiyama (U.S Patent 10727396B2 - referred to as Akiyama (2) hereinafter).
Regarding claims 13-15, Akiyama and Lee have not explicitly disclosed the wafer being one of the materials, claimed, however, this is disclosed by Akiyama (2).
Akiyama (2), drawn also to a process of bonding wafers and substrates (Abstract), discloses the wafer being lithium niobate or lithium tantalate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the wafers to be as claimed, as disclosed by Akiyama (2), to arrive at the instant invention, since as such this would merely involve a simple substitution of known materials (MPEP 2143 I(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
