DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 2, 19, 20, 22 and 23 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an atomic concentration of carbon in the first bonding layer is larger than 0% and smaller than 50% and gradually increases along with an increase of thickness of the first bonding layer prior to bonding,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, as the claim is drawn to a device after bonding, it is unclear how what characteristic(s) of the bonding layer are required in the claimed device. It is further unclear as to if the carbon concentration is required to be between 0% and 50% over the entire interval of increasing concentration, or if it is merely required to be between 0% and 50% at one point.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the second bonding layer on a surface of the second adhesive/bonding layer stack” is unclear as to how it is related to the “second adhesive/bonding stack comprises a second adhesive layer and a second bonding layer.” Specifically, the former recitation appears to require the bonding layer to be on the stack, however the latter appears to require the bonding layer to be a portion of the stack.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a same material,” is unclear as to how it is related to “a same dielectric material,” previously recited. Further, it is unclear as to what is required to be the same. Specifically, it is unclear as to if the second bonding (adhesive) layer is required merely the have the same elements (e.g. each is a SiNC material), or if each is also required to have the recited concentration and gradual increase of concentration prior to bonding.
Regarding claims 19, 20 and 23, each of the claims recites a characteristic of the material of the adhesive layer or the bonding layer, each limitation being unclear as to how it is related to “the first adhesive layer and the first bonding layer comprises a same dielectric material,” and “the second bonding (adhesive) layer and the first bonding (adhesive) layer comprises a same material” recited in claim 1. Furthermore, if the layers are required to have the same material in that they have the same characteristics (e.g. concentration), it is unclear as to how the silicon concentration requirements of claims 19 and 20 are compatible with the carbon concentration requirements of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the atomic concentration of silicon in the first adhesive layer is larger than 20%,” is unclear as to how it is related to “an atomic concentration of silicon in the first adhesive layer gradually changes along with the increase of thickness of the first adhesive layer,” as recited in claim 19. Specifically, it is unclear as to if the entire layer is required to be higher than 20% silicon or if it is required to have only one portion higher than 20%.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US 2011/0128399; herein “Fujii”) in view of Nishida (US 10,283,493; herein “Nishida”).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches in Fig. 12B and related text a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a first substrate (10); and
a first adhesive/bonding stack (e.g. 11) on a surface of the first substrate, wherein the first adhesive/bonding stack comprises a first adhesive layer (e.g. portion of 11 closest to 10, see [0086]) and a first bonding layer (e.g. portion of 11 closest to 21), the first adhesive layer contacts the surface of the first substrate, and the first bonding layer contacts a surface of the first adhesive layer opposite to the surface of the first substrate, and the first adhesive layer and the first bonding layer comprise a same dielectric materials, and the same dielectric material comprises dielectric material of silicon, nitrogen and carbon (silicon carbonitride, see [0086]), and an atomic concentration of carbon in the first bonding layer is larger than 0% and smaller than 50% and gradually increases along with an increase of thickness of the first bonding layer prior to bonding (note that it is the examiner’s interpretation that this characteristic is not required of the claimed structure as it is a characteristic before bonding);
a second adhesive/bonding stack (21) on a surface of the second substrate comprising a second adhesive/bonding stack comprising a second adhesive layer (portion of 21 closes to 20) and a second bonding layer (portion of 21 closest to 11), wherein the second bonding layer on a surface of the second adhesive/bonding stack is bonded to the first bonding layer, the second bonding layer and the first bonding layer comprise the same material, and the second adhesive layer and the first adhesive layer comprise the same material (silicon carbonitride, see [0086]);
a first bonding pad (CT1, see [0248]) extending through the first adhesive/bonding stack; and
a second bonding pad (CT2, see [0248]) extending through the second adhesive/bonding stack, wherein the first bonding pad is correspondingly bonded to the second bonding pad.
Fujii does not explicitly disclose the first substrate comprises a 3D NAND memory array and the second substrate comprises a peripheral circuit.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishida teaches in Figs. 22-29 a semiconductor structure with a first substrate comprising a 3D NAND memory array and the second substrate comprising a peripheral circuit (see col. 1 line 30 through col. 2 line 5, col. 35 lines 35-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujii by having a 3D NAND memory array and a peripheral circuit, as shown by Nishida, in order to achieve an assembled 3D memory structure which allows for higher density integration and methods of making which reduces negative impacts of processing steps on the logic device (see col. 4 lines 37-57 at least).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii further discloses wherein the surface of the first substrate (10) contacts the first adhesive layer (portion of 11 closest to 10), and a surface of the first adhesive/bonding stack is a surface of the first bonding layer (e.g. surface of 11 closest to 21).
Regarding claim 23, Fujii further discloses wherein the first bonding layer (portion of 11 closes to 21) is further doped with at least one element of oxygen (0), hydrogen (H), phosphorus (P) and fluorine (F) (includes portion which has been subjected to oxygen plasma, see [0142]).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii and Nishida as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2004/0227242; herein “Noguchi”).
Regarding claim 19, Fujii does not explicitly disclose wherein an atomic concentration of silicon in the first adhesive layer gradually changes along with the increase of thickness of the first adhesive layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Noguchi teaches a semiconductor device wherein an atomic concentration of silicon in a layer gradually changes along with the increase of thickness of the layer (see [0138] and [0143]; note that the concentration of nitrogen changing necessarily changes the relative silicon concentration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujii by having an atomic concentration of silicon in the layer gradually changes along with the increase of thickness of the layer, as taught by Noguchi, in order to achieve a proper balance of adhesion to overlying layers and barrier properties to underlying layers (see Noguchi [0143]). The limitation “an atomic concentration of silicon in the first adhesive layer gradually changes along with the increase of thickness of the first adhesive layer,” is therefore taught by the combination of the gradually changing concentration in the layer, as shown by Noguchi, and the layer being an adhesive layer, as shown by Fujii.
Regarding claim 20, the combined device does not explicitly disclose wherein the atomic concentration of silicon in the first adhesive layer is larger than 20%.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the silicon concentration to be a result effective variable affecting the adhesion and barrier properties (see Noguchi [0143]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Fujii to have the concentration within the claimed range in order to achieve the desired balance between the adhesion and barrier properties, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii and Nishida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ravi (US 2005/0260411; herein “Ravi”).
Regarding claim 22, Fujii does not explicitly disclose wherein a compactness of each layer in the first adhesive/bonding stack gradually changes in a direction of thickness of the first adhesive/bonding stack.
In the same field of endeavor, Ravi teaches in Fig. 1F and related text a semiconductor device wherein a compactness of a layer (110, see [0020]) gradually changes in a direction of thickness of the layer (porosity varies by depth, see [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujii by having a compactness of the layer gradually changes in a direction of thickness of the layer, as taught by Ravi, in order provide low dielectric material and good mechanical strength (see Ravi [(0118]) and to achieve improved bonding near the bonding surface (i.e. reduced pores near the bonding surface, see [0072]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to have the density increasing for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. increasing or decreasing), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). The limitation “each layer in the first adhesive/bonding stack gradually changes in a direction of thickness of the first adhesive/bonding stack,” is therefore taught by the combination of the gradually changing compactness in the layer, as shown by Ravi, and the layer being an adhesive/bonding layer stack, as shown by Fujii.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,811,380 in view of Fujii.
Specifically, the limitations of the claims of the instant application not recited in the claims of ‘380 are taught by Fujii for the same reasons and in the same manner as applied to the claims above.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,818,631. in view of Fujii.
Specifically, the limitations of the claims of the instant application not recited in the claims of ‘380 are taught by Fujii for the same reasons and in the same manner as applied to the claims above.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/703843 (reference application) in view of Fujii.
Specifically, the limitations of the claims of the instant application not recited in the claims of ‘380 are taught by Fujii for the same reasons and in the same manner as applied to the claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-8 of copending Application No. 16/378568 (reference application) in view of Fujii.
Specifically, the limitations of the claims of the instant application not recited in the claims of ‘380 are taught by Fujii for the same reasons and in the same manner as applied to the claims above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 5-6) that claim 20 has no ambiguity because the language requires the silicon concentration throughout the entire layer to be greater than 20%.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the limitation does not recite anything which would be construed as requiring “through the entire layer.” Further, it is noted that the specification provides no clarity as to how the two characteristics would impact each other. Thus the assertion by applicant’s representative is supported by the original disclosure and appears to be speculative.
Applicant argues (page 6-7) that the combination of Nishida and Fujii does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation because Nishida does not show bonding through an adhesive and bonding layer stack.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues (page 6-7) that the combination of Nishida and Fujii does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation because the combination is based upon improper hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 1/15/2026