Patent Application 17779199 - WAFER PROCESSING TEMPORARY ADHESIVE WAFER

Title: WAFER PROCESSING TEMPORARY ADHESIVE, WAFER LAMINATE, THIN WAFER MANUFACTURING METHOD

Application Information

Invention Title: WAFER PROCESSING TEMPORARY ADHESIVE, WAFER LAMINATE, THIN WAFER MANUFACTURING METHOD
Application Number: 17779199
Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-05-24T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-05-24T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 428
National Sub-Class: 391000
Examiner Employee Number: 84725
Art Unit: 1787
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0164802🔗
US 0189996🔗

Office Action Text

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 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.
Claims 1, 3-9 are pending. Applicant’s previous election of Group I, claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9 still applies and claims 7 remain withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 04/08/25 has been entered. Applicant's amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection and the remarks are not persuasive.
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 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.
If 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al. (U.S. 2019/0164802) in view of Tanabe et al. (U.S. 2016/0189996).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6 and 8-9, Ogino teaches a thermosetting temporary adhesive for bonding a wafer to a support for grinding/polishing (the intended use of claims 1, 3-6, 9 is not given patentable weight, and although the wafer and support have patentable weight in claim 8, the circuit forming and non-circuit forming limitations are not given patentable weight because they are intended uses of the wafer and both surfaces are inherently circuit forming and non-circuit forming), wherein the adhesive includes an alkenyl functional polysiloxane and an overlapping SiH functional polysiloxane, along with an overlapping amount of platinum catalyst, and overlapping amount of non-functional polysiloxane and an overlapping amount of reaction inhibitor as in claim 4, with the non-functional polysiloxane having a viscosity that would overlap claim 3 except it is not measured with toluene as claimed (see abstract, [0013], [0045], [0046], [0057]-[0072]).
Ogino also renders obvious the type of alkenyl functional siloxane of claim 9 (i.e., formula A-1 in claim 9) by disclosing alkenyl functional linear polydimethylsiloxane (since formula A-1 allows for the alkenyl groups to be in the ends, the side chain, or the ends and the side chain) with an overlapping amount of alkenyl groups and, given that Ogino teaches a range of viscosity that overlaps the range in the present application, an overlapping number of repeating units (since viscosity ranges of Ogino and the present application are both applied to linear, vinyl-functional PDMS siloxanes with an overlapping number of vinyl groups, the overlapping viscosities correspond to overlapping repeating units/MW) ([0062], [0065], [0102]).
Although viscosity is not measured with toluene as claimed, given the disclosed range of viscosity and the degree of overlap, it appears the viscosity in Ogino would still overlap the claimed range if measured under the claimed methodology. Furthermore, the composition is disclosed as being spin coated ([0045], a process that is affected by the composition viscosity) such that adjusting the viscosity of the ingredients, including the non-functional polysiloxane, would be considered a result-effective variable that would have been obvious to optimize as part of optimizing the composition viscosity for spin coating.
Regarding the molar ratio of alkenyl groups to SiH groups, a stoichiometric (1:1) ratio (within the claimed range) would also be obvious in Ogino given that the two groups are disclosed as crosslinking 1:1 during curing to form the cured coating ([0057]).
In addition to the claimed Vi:H ratio being obvious as explained above, and in addition to the formula of claim 9 being obvious as explained above, Tanabe is also directed to removable addition curable silicone adhesives for silicon wafers and teaches that a Vi:H ratio overlapping the claimed range is suitable and also teaches that vinyl functional polysiloxane overlapping claim 9 is suitable for providing such an adhesive (see abstract, [0010]-[0013]) such that it would have been obvious to have used such a ratio and formula from Tanabe for the ratio and alkenyl functional linear siloxane of Ogino because Tanabe shows them to be suitable specific teachings from within the general teaches called for by Ogino for providing a temporary adhesive for silicon wafers as desired by Ogino.
The peel force is not disclosed as claimed, however, Ogino teaches that the peel force should be adjusted ([0046]) such that it would have been obvious to have adjusted the peel force to within the claimed range as part of optimizing the adhesive for the temporary bonding use as disclosed by Ogino.
Ogino does not disclose the storage modulus as in claim 6, however, the coating of Ogino overlaps the present coating in terms of the type and amount of ingredients and therefore these overlapping embodiments of Ogino will inherently result in the same properties as the overlapped embodiments of the present application, including the claimed peel force and storage modulus.

Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection which were necessitated by Applicant's amendment. Remarks which are still deemed relevant are addressed below and are not persuasive.
Applicant points to a portion of Ogino that teaches a ratio outside the claimed range, however, these two specific values are just non-required/preferred embodiments in Ogino and other ratios would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as explained above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.

/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787