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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2025, 3/8/2026 and 7/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 19, 23-24, and 82-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh-540 (US 8609540 B2) in view of Chen (US 9331038 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Uzoh-540 teaches a bonded structure comprising: a first element (FIG. 1H, 100) having a bonding layer (see FIG. 1, bonding region comprising components 112d, 118, 114) including a first conductive feature (FIG. 1H, 118), a first nonconductive region (FIG. 1H, 114) and a first metallization layer (FIG. 1H, 112d and 108) including a conductive portion (FIG. 1H, 112, this is formed by “conductor” col. 4 lines 9-24) which is physically and electrically connected to the first conductive feature (FIG. 1H), the first conductive feature comprising a fine grain metal (col. 5, line 32 teaches material 118 can be conductive, col. 5 line 46 teaches the grain size of material 118 may vary between 5 to 200 nm) having an average grain size of 300 nm or less); and a second element (FIG. 2A, top half) having a second conductive feature (FIG. 2A, 212d, 218) and a second nonconductive region (FIG. 2A, 214, 206), wherein the first conductive feature is directly bonded to the second conductive feature without an intervening adhesive (FIG. 2A), and the first nonconductive region is directly bonded to the second nonconductive region without an intervening adhesive (FIG. 2A).
Uzoh-520 does not explicitly teach the average grain size of the conductive portion.
However, Chen teaches a conductive feature (FIG. 3, 301) wherein “and the conductive body 301 is a conductive copper post with an average grain size (a) between 200 nm and 800 nm” and further a conductive portion 302 for direct bonding that sits atop the conductive feature (FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bonding layer taught by Uzoh-520 such that the conductive portion comprises a coarse grain metal with an average grain size greater than 500 as taught by Chen. The examiner notes that one is further motivated to use grain sized above 500 nm (at the middle-to-upper part of the range taught by Chen) due to higher grain sizes being cheaper to manufacture, as is known to one having ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Also see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 2, Uzoh-540 further teaches that the first conductive feature comprises copper (col. 4, lines 8-12, FIG. 1B, 110).
Regarding claim 3, Uzoh further teaches the bonded structure of claim 1, wherein the grains of the first conductive feature have a maximum grain size of less than 2 micrometers (col. 5, line 46, grain size of material 118 may vary between 5 to 200 nm).
Regarding claim 5, Uzoh-540 further teaches that the average size of grains of the second conductive feature is 50 nm or less (col. 6, lines 17-22, dissimilar material 217 disposed on the second interconnect structure, col. 5, line 46, grain size of material 118 may vary between 5 to 200 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the portion of this range that is 50 nm or less. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example “ Small average grain size in a layer with homogeneous grain size distribution is thus preferred at the bonding interface to promote the grain boundary diffusion and the overall diffusion process” (Chen, col. 3, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 6, Uzoh-540 further teaches that the average size of grains of the second conductive feature is 300 nm or less (col. 6, lines 18-22, dissimilar material 217 disposed on the second interconnect structure, col. 5, line 46, grain size of material 117 may vary between 5 to 200 nm. Since 118 and 217 are disclosed as dissimilar materials, the examiner has assumed they share common properties).
Regarding claim 9, Uzoh-540 further teaches that the average grain size of the fine grain metal of the first conductive feature is in a range of 10 to 100 nm (col. 5, line 46 grain size of material 118 may vary between 5 to 200 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the portion of this range that is 10 to 100 nm. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example “ Small average grain size in a layer with homogeneous grain size distribution is thus preferred at the bonding interface to promote the grain boundary diffusion and the overall diffusion process” (Chen, col. 3, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 10, Uzoh-540 teaches that average grain size of the fine grain metal of the first conductive feature is in a range of 10 to 100 nm (col. 5, line 46, grain size of material 118 may vary between 50 to 200 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the portion of this range that is 10 to 100 nm. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example “ Small average grain size in a layer with homogeneous grain size distribution is thus preferred at the bonding interface to promote the grain boundary diffusion and the overall diffusion process” (Chen, col. 3, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 11, Uzoh-540 does not teach wherein more than 95% of the grains of the first conductive feature have a grain size variation less than 10%.
Uzoh-540 teaches that the grain size of dissimilar material 117 may vary between 5 to 200 nm col. 5, line 46) and that the dissimilar material can be an adhesion layer (col. 2, lines 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention of Usoh-540 and ensure the material contains a uniform grain size to serve as an adhesive layer and/or as a matter of routine optimalization per MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Uzoh-540 teaches a bonded structure comprising: a first element (FIG. 1H, 100) having a bonding layer (see FIG. 1, bonding region comprising components 112d, 118, 114) including a first conductive feature (FIG. 1H, 118), a first nonconductive region (FIG. 1H, 114) and a first metallization layer (FIG. 1H, 112d and 108) including a conductive portion (FIG. 1H, 112, this is formed by “conductor” col. 4 lines 9-24) which is physically and electrically connected to the first conductive feature (FIG. 1H), the first conductive feature comprising a fine grain metal (col. 5, line 32 teaches material 118 can be conductive, col. 5 line 46 teaches the grain size of material 118 may vary between 5 to 200 nm); and a second element (FIG. 2A, top half) having a second conductive feature (FIG. 2A, 212d, 218) and a second nonconductive region (FIG. 2A, 214, 206), wherein the first conductive feature is directly bonded to the second conductive feature without an intervening adhesive (FIG. 2A), and the first non-conductive region is directly bonded to the second nonconductive region without an intervening adhesive (FIG. 2A). In addition, in FIG. 5A, Uzoh-540 teaches a first conductive feature 518 in which “The height of the interconnect structure of FIG. 5A may vary between 0.03 to 300 microns, while the width or diameter may range between 0.03 to 50 microns” (paragraph 32). The examine notes that the number of intercepting grains of the fine grain metal of the first conductive feature is a function of grain size and surface area, with a maximum grain size of 200 nm (see above), a diameter of about 0.75 microns of the bonding structure would be needed ( (pi*(0.75*10^(-6))^2)/(pi*(200*10^(-9))^2) ~ 13) ) (the examiner notes that grains are being modeled as circular in cross section in the present case, though limitations would still be met for other geometries) in order to have more than 12 intercepting grains. Other ranges of disclosed embodiments meet this limitation.
Uzoh-540 does not explicitly teach the average grain size of the conductive portion.
However, Chen teaches a conductive feature (FIG. 3, 301) wherein “and the conductive body 301 is a conductive copper post with an average grain size (a) between 200 nm and 800 nm” and further a conductive portion 302 for direct bonding that sits atop the conductive feature (FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bonding layer taught by Uzoh-520 such that the conductive portion comprises a coarse grain metal with an average grain size greater than 500 as taught by Chen. The examiner notes that one is further motivated to use grain sized above 500 nm (at the middle-to-upper part of the range taught by Chen) due to higher grain sizes being cheaper to manufacture, as is known to one having ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Also see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Regarding claim 82, the examiner notes that with a maximum grain size of 200 nm (see above), a diameter of about 0.85 microns of the bonding structure would be needed ( (pi*(0.85*10^(-6))^2)/(pi*(200*10^(-9))^2) ~ 12) ) (the examiner notes that grains are being modeled as circular in cross section in the present case, though limitations would still be met for other geometries) to achieve more than 16 intercepting grains, well within the disclosed range. Other ranges of disclosed embodiments meet this limitation as well.
Regarding claim 83, the examiner notes that with a maximum grain size of 200 nm (see above), a diameter of about 0.95 microns of the bonding structure would be needed ( (pi*(0.95*10^(-6))^2)/(pi*(200*10^(-9))^2) ~ 21) ) (the examiner notes that grains are being modeled as circular in cross section in the present case, though limitations would still be met for other geometries) to achieve more than 20 intercepting grains, well within the disclosed range. Other ranges of disclosed embodiments meet this limitation as well.
Regarding claim 23, Uzoh-540 teaches an interconnect structure comprising: an element (FIG. 1H, 100) having a bonding surface as well as a bonding layer (see FIG. 1, bonding surface of element 112d) including a conductive feature (FIG. 1H, 18 and top portion of 112d), a nonconductive region (FIG. 1H, 114) and a metallization layer (FIG. 1H, bottom portion of 112d) including a conductive portion (FIG. 1H, 112, this is formed by “conductor” col. 4 lines 9-24) which is physically and electrically connected to the first conductive feature (FIG. 1H), in which the conductive feature is at least partially embedded in the nonconductive region (see FIG. 1) and the conductive portion comprises a top portion (118) disposed over a bottom portion (top portion of 112d), and the top portion is positioned closer to the bonding surface of the element, the upper portion (118) of the first conductive feature comprising a fine grain metal (col. 5, line 32 teaches material 118 can be conductive, col. 5 line 46 teaches the grain size of material 118 may vary between 5 to 200 nm, which is 300 nm or less).
Uzoh-540 does not explicitly teach that the lower portion of the conductive portion of the metallization layer is greater than 500 nm or that the top portion of the conductive feature has an average grain size that is smaller than an average grain size of the bottom portion.
However, Chen teaches a conductive feature (FIG. 3, 301) wherein “and the conductive body 301 is a conductive copper post with an average grain size (a) between 200 nm and 800 nm” and further a conductive portion 302 for direct bonding that sits atop the conductive feature (FIG. 3, col. 7, lines 17-23). The examiner also notes that this corresponds to the lower portion of the conductive portion of the conductive feature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the interconnect structure taught by Uzoh-540 such that the lower portion of the conductive portion of the metallization layer is greater than 500 nm or that the top portion of the conductive feature has an average grain size that is smaller than an average grain size of the bottom portion. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, because utilizing larger grains sizes for the conductive portion and conductive feature is cheaper to manufacture, and doing so does not compromise the quality of the direct copper bond, as these are lower portions of the interconnect. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 24, Uzoh-540 further teaches a second element (FIG. 1, 212d, 218).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh-540 (US 8609540 B2) in view of Chen (US 9331038 B2) in further view of Uzoh-250 (10886250 B2).
Regarding claim 14, as explained above, Uzoh-540 and Chen teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not teach nanoparticles of an inert material being included in the fine grain metal of the first conductive feature.
However, Uzoh-250 teaches a fine grain metal (Uzoh-250, col. 11, lines 35-40, first portion 132 can include a conductive material, col. 15, lines 50-54, the first portion 132 can be disposed by a metal plating bath including metal grain refiners) of the first conductive feature (Uzoh-250, FIG. 2D, 132) comprises nanoparticles 150 of an inert material (Uzoh-250 col. 15 nanoparticles including tin).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the bonding structure taught by Uzoh-540 such that the first bonding structure comprises nanoparticles of an inert material, as taught by Uzoh-250. One having ordinary skill in the art it motivated to do so in order to, for example, form metallurgical joints between juxtaposed first and second conductive elements (Uzoh-250, abstract).
Claim(s) 15-16, 18, and 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh-540 (US 8609540 B2) in view of Chen (US 9331038 B2) in further view of Uzoh-250 (10886250 B2) and Brusic (US 5755859 A).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, as explained above, Uzoh-540, Chen and Uzoh-250 teach the limitations of claim 14, they do not teach that the concentration of inert particles is less than 1% of the first conductive feature.
However, Brusic teaches that it has been determined that a trace amount of tin diffused into copper is enough to modify the copper grain structure and growth characteristic to inhibit hillock formation (col. 5, lines 20-23 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Uzoh-540 in orders, motivated in an attempt to modify the copper grain structure and growth characteristics to inhibit hillock formation in order to ensure a larger bonding surface area and increase electrical and thermal conductivity between bonded surfaces and/or routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05. Also See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzoh-540 (US 8609540 B2) in view of Chen (US 9331038 B2) in further view of Uzoh-396 (US 20200194396 A1).
As explained above, Uzoh-540 and Chen teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not teach an impurity of one or more of sulfur, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Uzoh-396 teaches a direct bonded structure (FIG. 1) which has copper interconnects ([0033] heat is often applied . . . to cause the material (e.g. copper) . . . to expand . . . and to contact each other . . . The heated annealing of the conductive features causes them to join into a single conductive interconnect) in which impurities are added ([0050] Adding impurities to the materials (e.g., copper or copper alloy) of the conductive features 110′ can change various physical properties of the materials. For example, the addition of some impurities (e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, etc.) can improve the thermo-mechanical properties of the materials).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bonded structure taught by Uzoh-540 such that the fine grain metal comprises impurities of one of more of sulfur, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, as taught by Uzoh-396. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to improve the thermo-mechanical properties of the copper, as taught by Uzoh-396 above.
Regarding claim 81, Uzoh-396 further teaches impurity concentrations below 50 ppm ([0059] Typical impurities can comprise carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, etc., at a desired concentration typically below 50 ppm. . .)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the bonded structure taught by Uzoh such that the impurity concentration is in a range of 30 to 5000 ppm, as taught by Uzoh-396. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to achieve the desired thermo-mechanical properties described above and/or as a matter of routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Uzoh-540 (US 8609540 B2) in view of Chen (US 9331038 B2) in further view of Tsai (US 20170025381 A1).
Regarding claim 20, as explained above, Uzoh-540 and Chen teach the limitations of claim 19. They do not teach that the fine grain metal comprises at least one of boron, indium, phosphorus, gallium, nickel, cobalt, tin, manganese, titanium, vanadium and selenium.
Tsai teaches a bonded structure (FIG. 2) comprising a first element (202) having a first conductive feature (238) and a first nonconductive region (ILD layers 218), the first conductive feature comprising a fine grain metal ([0017], at least one copper feature is an alloy) having an average grain size of 300 nm or less ([0020] grains in regions of copper alloy may have dimensions about 30-40 nm e.g. about 35 nm), and a second element (FIG. 2, 204) having a second conductive feature (240) and a second nonconductive region (ILD layer 218) wherein the first conductive feature is directly bonded to the second conductive feature without an intervening adhesive (238 and 240 at 208 to define copper-to-copper bond 242) and the first nonconductive region Is directly bonded to the second nonconductive region without an intervening adhesive ([0023] dielectric layers abut one another at 208 to define dielectric-to-dielectric bond 224). Tsai further teaches that the fine grain metal comprises at least one of boron, indium, phosphorus, gallium, nickel, cobalt, tin, manganese, titanium, vanadium, and selenium ([0017] secondar metal may be titanium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, [0026], secondar metal may have atomic weight less than copper e.g. boron, phosphorus, vanadium, [0026], secondary metal may have atomic size difference with copper less than about 10% e.g. gallium, tin, selenium).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Uzoh-540 such that the fine grain metal comprises at least one of boron, indium, phosphorus, gallium, nickel, cobalt, tin, manganese, titanium, vanadium and selenium, as taught by Tsai, One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because doing so improves strength and reliability of the bond ([0026 Advantageously, the secondary metal improves the strength and the reliability of the copper-to-copper bond 242 and any other bonds involving the at least one copper-alloy feature, such as the copper-to-dielectric bond 244, by filling nanoscopic voids along the interface 208)
Regarding claim 21, Uzoh-540 further teaches that the first conductive feature comprises a fine grain metal of the first conductive feature with grain sizes of 300 nm or less (see above).
Regarding claim 22, Uzoh-540 further teaches that the average size of the fine grain metal may range between 5-200 nm (see above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the bonding structure taught by Uzoh-540 such that the average grain size of the fine grain metal is in a range of 10-100 nm. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example “Small average grain size in a layer with homogeneous grain size distribution is thus preferred at the bonding interface to promote the grain boundary diffusion and the overall diffusion process” (Chen, col. 3, lines 21-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to drawings submitted on 7/24/2025 regarding previous objections are acknowledged and accepted.
Applicant’s amendments to specification submitted on 7/24/2025 regarding previous objections are acknowledged and accepted.
Applicant’s amendments to previously submitted claims 3-5, 11, 14-17, and 20 in response to previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged and accepted as overcoming previous rejections regarding antecedent basis and indefinite language (reply filed 7/27/2025, pages 12-13).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previously filed claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (reply filed 7/24/2025, pages 13-15) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previously filed claim(s) 11, 13, 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (reply filed 7/24/2025, page 16) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previously filed claim(s) 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (reply filed 7/24/2025, pages 16-17) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights