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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the first substrate of the second substrate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (JP2021157934A - corresponding U.S PG Pub 20230013572A1 used for citations), Hauru (U.S PG Pub 20210403760A1), and Fountain (U.S PG Pub 20200035641A1).
Regarding claim 1, Osawa, drawn to the art of bonding/annealing [0066] a first and second substrate (101 and 102 respectively) (Figure 2), discloses the first and second substrate having regions 101b and 102b, each region having an insulating film (125) and a conductive film (electrodes 121 & 122 & 127 – figure 2 & 9 & 13B), and wherein an adhesive is applied to region 101b (figure 8A) [0066], and wherein annealing is performed between the first and second substrate in a vacuum atmosphere [0068] at an elevated temperature [0066].
Osawa has not explicitly disclosed a first operation (processing step of polishing) and a second operation (applying an ionic liquid and bonding using the ionic liquid), however, the above are known from Fountain and Hauru, respectively, as explained below.
Hauru, drawn also to the art of joining substrates with ionic liquids (Abstract), discloses a process of applying an ionic liquid to both surfaces of the substrates and then heating the substrates and compressing them to bond them with an ionic liquid (claim 23 & 27 & 39).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Osawa, with using an ionic liquid to bond the substrates, as disclosed by Hauru, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to bond substrates with no chemical or synthetic polymer remaining in the product [0019].
Regarding the first operation step, Fountain, drawn also to the art of processing dies and wafers for hybrid bonding (Title; Abstract; [0008]), discloses the need to perform chemical-mechanical polishing on the wafer or die surface prior to bonding in order to planarize the bonding surface (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Osawa and Hauru, with the step of performing polishing, as disclosed by Fountain, to arrive at the instant invention in order to planarize the bonding surface.
Regarding claim 2, Osawa as modified by Hauru and Fountain discloses the instant limitations (see Fountain section above).
Regarding claim 3, Osawa as modified by Hauru and Fountain, discloses the instant limitations. Hauru has disclosed that the ionic liquid is applied to at least the one of the surfaces, which implies that the ionic liquid can be applied to both substrates, i.e. both surfaces (claims 23 & 27 & 39 of Hauru).
Regarding claim 4, Osawa discloses annealing the first and second substrate at an elevated temperature and under vacuum i.e. compressing and heating to bond the substrates [0066 & 0068]. Hauru has also disclosed compressing and heating the substrates to bond them (see claims 23 & 27 & 39 of Hauru).
Regarding claim 5, Osawa as modified by Hauru and Fountain, discloses the instant limitations. Hauru discloses gelling of the ionic liquid (claim 38) and wherein heating involves liquefying or melting the ionic liquid (claim 39).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Osawa, with the step of gelling and liquefying the ionic liquid, as disclosed by Hauru, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to bond substrates with no chemical or synthetic polymer remaining in the product [0019].
Regarding claim 6, Osawa discloses annealing being performed in a vacuum atmosphere [0068].
Regarding claim 7, Osawa has disclosed that the conductive films are the same material [0040].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (JP2021157934A - corresponding U.S PG Pub 20230013572A1 used for citations), Hauru (U.S PG Pub 20210403760A1), Fountain (U.S PG Pub 20200035641A1), and further in view of Singh (U.S PG Pub 20140335698A1).
Regarding claim 8, neither Osawa, Hauru, nor Fountain, have explicitly disclosed the ionic liquid being THTDP-DcO, however, this limitation is known from Singh.
Singh, drawn also to the art of a manufacturing process of semiconductor substrates with electrodes [0002], discloses an ionic liquid being used as protective layer on a surface of the assembly, and discloses the ionic liquid to be THTDP-DcO [0023].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Osawa, Hauru, and Fountain, with the ionic liquid being THTDP-DcO, as disclosed by Singh, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to form a solid protective layer [0023].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20230226571-A1, US-20160013088-A1, US-10851181-B2 – all drawn to bonding methods.
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
Prosecution Insights