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 Objections
Claims 3, 9, 15, 17, 18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 9 and 15, “the set of stored orthogonal wafer signatures” lacks proper antecedent basis;
Claim 15, “the wafer shape metrology sub-system” lacks proper antecedent basis;
Claims 17 and 18 both depend from claim 13, but claim does not introduce the orthogonal wafer signatures;
Claim 21, the extracting step, overlay distortion patterns, control adjustor positions, and adjustor control group all lack proper antecedent basis. Further, “claim of 13” appears to be a typo.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-21 are rejected on the ground of non statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,277 and, separately, over various claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,782,411. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons as further described below.
In the interest of providing a compact yet thorough record, the examiner will state each of the pending claims, and then will very briefly state to which of the patented claims each is interpreted to correspond to, additionally any discerned differences will be very briefly touched upon as well so the reader can clearly understand the opinion of the examiner with respect to each mapping.
With respect to pending claims 1 and 2, these claims recite the same bonder control model and feedback control as patented claim 1 of ‘277, and patented claim 1 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claims 1 and 2 use proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 1 of ‘277 and patented claim 1 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 3, this claim recites the same model generation steps as patented claim 2 of ‘277, and patented claim 1 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 3 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 2 of ‘277 and patented claim 1 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 4, this claim recites the same feedback adjustments to minimize predicted overlay distortion as patented claim 3 of ‘277, and patented claim 2 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 4 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 3 of ‘277 and patented claim 2 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 5, this claim recites the same bonder tool adjustors coupled to actuators as patented claim 4 of ‘277, and patented claim 3 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 5 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 4 of ‘277 and patented claim 3 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 6, this claim recites the same first and second interferometer subsystems as patented claim 5 of ‘277, and patented claim 4 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 6 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 5 of ‘277 and patented claim 4 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 7, this claim recites the same controller-based bonder control and feedback as patented claim 6 of ‘277, and patented claim 5 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 7 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 6 of ‘277 and patented claim 5 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 8, this claim recites the same generation of the bonder control model as patented claim 6 of ‘277, and patented claim 5 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 8 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 6 of ‘277 and patented claim 5 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 9, this claim recites the same model generation steps as patented claim 7 of ‘277, and patented claim 5 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 9 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 7 of ‘277 and patented claim 5 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 10, this claim recites the same feedback adjustment to minimize predicted overlay distortion as patented claim 8 of ‘277, and patented claim 6 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 10 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 8 of ‘277 and patented claim 6 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 11, this claim recites the same bonder tool adjustors coupled to actuators as patented claim 9 of ‘277, and patented claim 7 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 11 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 9 of ‘277 and patented claim 7 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 12, this claim recites the same first and second interferometer subsystems as patented claim 10 of ‘277, and patented claim 8 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 12 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 10 of ‘277 and patented claim 8 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 13, this claim recites the same bonder control and feedback method as patented claim 11 of ‘277, and patented claim 9 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 13 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 11 of ‘277 and patented claim 9 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 14, this claim recites the same generation of the bonder control model as patented claim 11 of ‘277, and patented claim 9 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 14 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 11 of ‘277 and patented claim 9 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 15, this claim recites the same model generation steps as patented claim 12 of ‘277, and patented claim 9 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 15 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 12 of ‘277 and patented claim 9 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 16, this claim recites the same adjustor control group generation using known adjustor settings as patented claim 13 of ‘277, and patented claim 10 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 16 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 13 of ‘277 and patented claim 10 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 17, this claim recites the same use of principal component analysis to generate orthogonal wafter signatures as patented claim 14 of ‘277, and patented claim 11 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 17 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 14 of ‘277 and patented claim 11 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 18, this claim recites the same mapping of orthogonal wafer signatures to bonder tool adjustors as patented claim 15 of ‘277, and patented claim 12 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 18 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 15 of ‘277 and patented claim 12 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 19, this claim recites the same manual control of bonder tool adjustors as patented claim 16 of ‘277, and patented claim 13 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 19 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 16 of ‘277 and patented claim 13 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
With respect to pending claim 20, this claim recites the same computer control of bonder tool adjustors as patented claim 17 of ‘277, and patented claim 14 of ‘411. The difference appears to be that pending claim 20 uses proposed bonder tool adjustments, whereas patented claim 17 of ‘277 and patented claim 14 of ‘411 use measured bonding distortions. It would be obvious to use the model to check proposed adjustments before applying them.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0013416 A1 (‘416) in view of Fonseca, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0135592 A1 (‘592).
As per claim 1, ‘416 in view of ‘592 discloses a system comprising:
a wafer shape metrology sub-system configured to perform one or more shape measurements on a pair of pre-bonding wafers and a corresponding post- bonding pair of wafers (e.g., See ‘416; [0042], [0044] and [0047], which disclose a shape metrology tool that measures physical parameters of pre bond wafers and a corresponding post bond wafer); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the wafer shape metrology sub- system, the controller including one or more processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in a memory (e.g., See ‘416; [0051] and [0125], which disclose a processor that uses physical parameters measured by the shape metrology tool, a memory that stores the physical parameters, and instructions executed by the processor), the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to:
acquire a bonder control model, wherein the bonder control model relates a set of bonder tool adjustments with a set of overlay distortion signatures (e.g., Although ‘416 discloses a model of a wafer bonding process that relates process conditions to a post bond distortion and represents the post bond distortion using fingerprint coefficients (e.g., See ‘416; [0089] – [0090]), ‘416 does not specifically disclose the overlay feature. ‘592 discloses the missing overlay feature by disclosing, in [0025] – [0026], that overlay is a measurement type for which a fingerprint and a process model may be generated, and that a fingerprint coefficient may respond to a set of adjustable process parameters that are equipment settings);
receive a set of proposed bonder tool adjustments of a pair of bonded wafers (e.g., See ‘416; [0068], which discloses an initial wafer bonding recipe having the process conditions and changing one or more of the process conditions for an incoming wafer pair);
apply the bonder control model to the proposed bonder tool adjustments to determine a set of predicted overlay distortion signatures for the bonded pair of wafers (e.g., See ‘416; [0068], which discloses using the model with the process conditions of the initial wafer bonding recipe to produce an estimated post bond distortion);
determine whether the set of predicted overlay distortion signatures is outside tolerance limits (e.g., See ‘416; [0068], which discloses determining whether the estimated post bond distortion meets a post bond distortion threshold); and
provide one or more feedback adjustments to the bonder tool to adjust one or more bonder tool adjustors when the set of predicted overlay distortion signatures is outside tolerance limits (e.g., See ‘416; [0068], which discloses changing one or more of the process conditions when the estimated post bond distortion does not meet the post bond distortion threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘592 into ‘416 for the purpose of keeping spatial overlay information in the bonding model, thereby helping the model choose settings that reduce distortion across the wafer.
As per claims 7 and 13, the rational as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, is applied herein.
As per claim 2, this claim further requires generating the bonder control model.
‘416 discloses this feature by creating the model of the wafer bonding process using fingerprinting functions (e.g., See ‘416; [0087], which corresponds to generating the bonder control model).
As per claims 8 and 14, the rational as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 2, is applied herein.
As per claim 4, this claim further requires the providing of the one or more feedback adjustments to the one or more bonder tool adjustors to minimize a predicted overlay distortion signature.
‘416 discloses this feature by changing the process conditions of the wafer bonding recipe until the estimated post bond distortion is reduced below the post bond distortion threshold (e.g., See ‘416; [0066]).
As per claim 10, the rational as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 4, is applied herein.
As per claim 18, this claim further requires that the orthogonal wafer signatures are mapped to one or more bonder tool adjustors.
‘592 discloses this feature by disclosing a fingerprint having coefficients modeled as functions of adjustable process parameters that are equipment settings (e.g., See ‘592; [0044], which discloses a fingerprint represented by a set of coefficients of orthogonal basis functions, and [0025], which discloses that the coefficients associate the orthogonal basis functions to the equipment settings, wherein the orthogonal wafer signatures correspond to the one or more bonder tool adjustors).
As per claim 20, this claim further requires that the one or more bonder tool adjustors are controlled via a computer system.
‘416 discloses this feature by disclosing a processor that tunes a set of process conditions of a wafer bonding recipe (e.g., See ‘416; [0050]), where a set of optimized process conditions serve as instructions for a wafer processing tool (e.g., See ‘416; [0067]). Therefore, the processor controls the process conditions used by the wafer processing tool.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0013416 A1 (‘416) in view of Fonseca, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0135592 A1 (‘592), as applied to claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 13 and 14, from above, in further view of Kohama, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0327773 A1 (‘773).
As per claim 3, this claim further requires that the generating of the bonder control model comprises:
bonding wafer pairs with different settings of one or more adjustors of the bonder tool to generate a set of overlay distortion patterns (e.g., ‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose the different bonding settings used to generate the distortion patterns. ‘773 discloses this missing feature, in [0182], by obtaining inspection results from bonding performed with a parameter set to a minimum value and a maximum value, and [0148], which discloses comparing inspection results at different inter substrate gap settings to obtain changes in distortion);
measuring at least some of the overlay distortion patterns of the set of overlay distortion patterns using the wafer shape metrology sub-system (e.g., See ‘416; [0039], which discloses measuring wafer shape data of a post bond wafer and using the wafer shape data to estimate post bond distortion, and also See ‘592; [0043], which further discloses using overlay error measurements as metrology data);
extracting actuator-induced changes as the difference in the overlay distortion patterns relative to a set of control adjustor positions (e.g., ‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose this feature. ‘773 discloses this missing feature, in [0148], by comparing the inspection results at a 30 µm inter substrate gap with the inspection results at other gap settings to obtain changes in distortion); and
generating the set of stored orthogonal wafer signatures based on the actuator-induced changes (e.g., See ‘592, [0044], which discloses a fingerprint represented by a set of coefficients of orthogonal basis functions, and [0025, which disclose that the coefficients may respond to adjustable process parameters, and [0063], which discloses an archived reference set of fingerprints). These features are collectively interpreted to correspond to the archived fingerprints being based on the distortion changes caused by the changed bonding parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘773 into ‘416 in view of ‘592 for the purpose of measuring how known bonding setting changes affect distortion, thereby giving the model clear data for choosing settings that reduce distortion.
As per claims 9 and 15, the rational as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 3, is applied herein.
As per claim 5, this claim further requires that the one or more bonder tool adjustors are communicatively coupled to one or more actuators on the bonder tool.
‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose this feature.
‘773 discloses this missing feature by disclosing a striker having an actuator that controls a press load (e.g., See ‘773; [0075] – [0076]), and a controller that changes a striker pressure parameter and performs bonding with the changed parameter (e.g., See ‘773; [0177]). Therefore, the changed striker pressure setting is applied through the actuator, which corresponds to the bonder tool adjustor being communicatively coupled to the actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘773 into ‘416 in view of ‘592 for the purpose of applying bonding adjustments through an actuator, thereby making the bonding force easier to control and repeat.
As per claim 11, the rational as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 5, is applied herein.
As per claim 16, this claim further requires generating an adjustor control group via bonding wafer pairs with known adjustor settings
‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose this feature.
‘773 discloses the missing feature by disclosing bonding with a parameter set to a minimum value and a maximum value and using a set of resulting inspection results to create correlation information (e.g., See ‘773; [0182], where the known parameter settings are interpreted to correspond to the adjustor control group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘773 into ‘416 in view of ‘592 for the purpose of creating a control group from known bonding settings, thereby giving a clear reference for measuring later distortion changes.
As per claim 21, this claim further requires comparing the actuator induced changes to the adjustor control group.
‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose this feature.
‘773 discloses the missing feature by disclosing obtaining a set of changes in distortion from inspection results at different inter substrate gap settings and comparing the changes to create trend information (e.g., See ‘773; [0148]), and by creating correlation information from a set of inspection results obtained at minimum and maximum parameter values (e.g., See ‘773 [0182]). The known parameter values are interpreted to correspond to the adjustor control group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘773 into ‘416 in view of ‘592 for the purpose of comparing distortion changes at known bonding settings, thereby making it easier to choose bonding settings that reduce distortion.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0013416 A1 (‘416) in view of Fonseca, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0135592 A1 (‘592), as applied to claims 1 and 7, from above, in further view of Tang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0176973 A1 (‘973).
As per claim 6, this claim further requires that the wafer shape metrology sub-system comprises a first interferometer sub-system and a second interferometer sub- system.
‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose this feature.
‘973 discloses the missing feature by disclosing a measurement system having a first Fizeau interferometer and a second Fizeau interferometer, with a wafer positioned between the two interferometers to measure wafer shape (e.g., See ‘973; [0016] – [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘973 into ‘416 in view of ‘592 for the purpose of measuring both sides of a wafer, thereby giving a more complete representation of the wafer shape.
As per claim 12, the rational as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 6, is applied herein.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0013416 A1 (‘416) in view of Fonseca, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0135592 A1 (‘592), as applied to claim 13, from above, in further view of Bow, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0305772 A1 (‘772).
As per claim 17, this claim further requires that the generation of a set of orthogonal wafer signatures is achieved through principal component analysis.
‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose this feature.
‘772 discloses this missing feature by applying Principal Component Analysis to training data to form a set of principal components, where the principal components are orthogonal and represent distortion patterns (e.g., See ‘772; [0040]), the principal components being chosen as new basis functions for fitting distortions (e.g. See ‘772; [0041]), where the orthogonal principal components representing distortion patterns are interpreted to correspond to the orthogonal wafer signatures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘772 into ‘416 in view of ‘592 for the purpose of forming orthogonal distortion patterns from measured wafer data, thereby creating basis functions that fit wafer distortion more accurately.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0013416 A1 (‘416) in view of Fonseca, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0135592 A1 (‘592), as applied to claim 13, from above, in further view of Johnson, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0102270 A1 (‘270).
As per claim 19, this claim further requires that the one or more bonder tool adjustors are controlled manually.
‘416 in view of ‘592 does not specifically disclose this feature.
‘270 discloses this missing feature by disclosing a wafer bonder having an adjustment mechanism with leveling and tension components, where the leveling and tension components are adjusted manually by rotating a micrometer and a screw (e.g., See ‘270; [0055]), where the manual adjustments are interpreted to correspond to the manually controlled bonder tool adjustors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘270 into ‘416 in view of ‘592 for the purpose of manually setting bonder adjustments, thereby giving an operator direct control over chuck leveling and tension.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2020/0219850 A1, which discloses measuring bonded wafer misalignment, checking error limits, and adjusting subsequent wafer bonding to reduce the misalignment;
(2) US 2018/0364579 A1, which discloses using wafer geometry and a prediction model to predict distortion and adjust tool settings to reduce overlay error;
(3) US 2019/0355699 A1, which discloses measuring bonding misalignment and controlling wafer deformation settings to correct distortion during subsequent wafer bonding;
(4) US 2014/0356981 A1, which discloses measuring grid distortion and feeding corrections into subsequent processing to reduce wafer bonding misalignment;
(5) US 2022/0344179 A1, which discloses using pre bond wafer shape and physical modeling to determine bonding adjustments that reduce post bond distortion; and
(6) US 2019/0304784 A1, which discloses reducing wafer bonding distortion using known distortion signatures and bonding conditions that counter subsequent bonding distortion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 August 28, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights