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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search and examination of the entire application could be made without a serious burden because, it is alleged, a search for the subject matter of each designated invention would encompass a search for the subject matter of the other invention. This is not found persuasive because the respective subject matter searches of the different inventions are in two different class/subclasses. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps, while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0049702 to Williams et al. (“Williams”).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a method for activating a substrate with a plasma (abstract, para [0014]), the method comprising: directing, from an inlet (ref. 104) to a housing (ref. 102) configured to define a path for gas flow within the housing, a gas flow comprising a multigas mixture (ref. 106) of at least three different gas species combined in a predetermined ratio (para [0049], [0077]); directing the gas flow within the housing between a powered electrode (ref. 110) and a grounded electrode (ref. 114) (para [0050]); delivering power from a power supply (ref. 118) to ionize the gas flow and produce the plasma comprising reactive neutral species for activating the substrate (para [0051]); and moving the substrate and the plasma relative to each other at a predetermined scanning speed, such that the plasma activates the substrate (para [0014], [0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Williams discloses a method wherein the at least three different gas species is argon, nitrogen, and hydrogen (para [0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Williams discloses a method where the substrate comprises at least one of an insulator, a semiconductor, a polymer, or a metal (para [0047]).
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0049702 to Williams et al. (“Williams”).
Regarding claim 4, Williams discloses a method where the predetermined scanning speed is between 25 and 300 mm/s (para [0063]), which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.5 and 250 mm/s. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Williams discloses a method where the plasma is created from a combination of argon, hydrogen, and nitrogen gas at a predetermined ratio, wherein the argon comprises 93.75% of the gas mixture, and the hydrogen to nitrogen ratio varies from 0.05 to 5.0 (para [0077]). Williams discloses 93.75% of argon, rather than the claimed 97.0% to 99.5%. However, 93.75% is close to 97.0%. Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Williams discloses a method wherein the plasma is at atmospheric pressure (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Williams discloses a method wherein the substrate is held at a temperature between room temperature and 200 degrees C (para [0077]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0049702 to Williams et al. (“Williams”) in view of US 2018/0247914 to Peng et al. (“Peng”).
Regarding claim 8, Williams does not explicitly teach the method wherein the substrate is not heated. It was known in the art that plasma activation can be performed without heating a substrate (see, e.g. Peng at, inter alia, para [0033]), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Williams method as was known wherein the substrate is heated, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit the waste of energy and safety and damage risk. It is noted that the present specification does not appear to demonstrate the criticality of not heating the substrate (see, e.g., present claim 7).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0049702 to Williams et al. (“Williams”) in view of US 2024/0006301 to Tong et al. (“Tong”).
Regarding claim 9, Williams does not explicitly teach the method wherein the substrate further comprises a dielectric portion and a metallic portion, and wherein the reactive neutral species generated by the plasma prepares the dielectric portion for hybrid bonding, while maintaining the metallic portion in a clean, reduced metallic state. Tong teaches a method of hybrid bonding (abstract, para [0075]) wherein a substrate comprises a dielectric portion and a metallic portion, and wherein reactive neutral species generated by plasma prepares the dielectric portion for hybrid bonding, while maintaining the metallic portion in a clean, reduced metallic state (para [0078] – [0079], Fig. 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Williams method in view of Tong wherein the substrate further comprises a dielectric portion and a metallic portion, and wherein the reactive neutral species generated by the plasma prepares the dielectric portion for hybrid bonding, while maintaining the metallic portion in a clean, reduced metallic state, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide semiconductor packages configured to speed up interconnect sealing for 3D ICs and advanced System-in-a-Packages (Tong, [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Williams does not explicitly teach moving the substrate to a hybrid bonder; and hybrid bonding the substrate to at least one of a wafer or die. Tong teaches a method of hybrid bonding (abstract, para [0075]) including moving a substrate to a hybrid bonder; and hybrid bonding the substrate to at least one of a wafer or die (para [0078], Fig. 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Williams method in view of Tong wherein it includes moving the substrate to a hybrid bonder; and hybrid bonding the substrate to at least one of a wafer or die. Tong teaches a method of hybrid bonding, in order to provide semiconductor packages configured to speed up interconnect sealing for 3D ICs and advanced System-in-a-Packages (Tong, [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,902,870 to Frind et al. teaches a method for plasma cleaning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights