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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 November 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted amendments to claim 20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The originally examined claims were directed to a pre-bond semiconductor structure, wherein a first bonding layer was configured to bond to a second bonding layer. Claim 20 is directed to a post-bonded semiconductor structure wherein a first bonding layer is in direct contact with a second bonding layer, forming an interface having different characteristics than the pre-bonded first and second bonding layers.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 November 2025. These drawings are unacceptable as they add new matter.
Figures 2-5 introduce a “First Surface Layer” and a “Second Surface Layer”, including details such as positioning within the first and second bonding layers and their relative thicknesses. This was not disclosed in the originally filed application.
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“the first surface layer…is configured to surround the first bonding pad within the first thickness of the first bonding layer”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings contain deficient line quality and reference characters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible. Refer to 37 CFR 1.84(l) and 1.84(p(1)). See Figure(s) 1-6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (U.S. 2019/0096830) in view of Andideh et al. (U.S. 6,350,670).
Regarding Claim 1, Wei et al. Figure 1H discloses a pre-bond semiconductor structure, comprising:
a first bonding layer comprising a first bonding pad and a first surface layer (first bonding pad 116 or 114, first surface layer 110 or 110/108), wherein:
the first bonding layer comprises element silicon, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen ([0020], [0046]);
the first bonding pad is configured to be in direct contact with a second bonding pad of a second bonding layer (first bonding pad 116 or 114);
the first surface layer is configured to be in direct contact with a second surface layer of the second bonding layer to bond the first bonding layer with the second bonding layer (first surface layer 110 or 110/108); and
part of the first bonding layer having a first thickness from a bonding surface of the first bonding layer forms the first surface layer, and the first surface layer surrounds the first bonding pad within the first thickness of the first bonding layer (first surface layer 110 or 110/108, first bonding pad 116 or 114).
However, they do not explicitly disclose that the carbon atomic concentration of the first surface layer is higher than or equal to 35% or that the element carbon in the first bonding layer is in a form of methyl groups comprising -CH3 bonds, the first surface layer comprising the -CH3 bonds. Andideh et al. discloses a device in the same field of endeavor wherein a carbon atomic concentration of the surface layer is higher than or equal to 35% (Andideh et al., Figure 1f, Column 2, lines 30-33) and that the element carbon in a first bonding layer is in a form of methyl groups comprising -CH3 bonds, a first surface layer comprising the -CH3 bonds (Andideh et al., Column 2, Lines 30-55). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the carbon atomic concentration of the surface layer to be higher than or equal to 35% and form the element carbon in the first bonding layer is in a form of methyl groups comprising -CH3 bonds, the first surface layer comprising the -CH3 bonds in Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. in order to improve the device’s RC performance (Andideh et al., Column 5, Lines 11-22). It is noted that where the claimed ranges “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) and that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the carbon concentration to be a result effective variable affecting the dielectric constant of the insulating layer (Andideh et al., Column 5, Lines 11-22) and thus it would have been obvious to modify the device of Wei et al. to have the carbon concentration within the claimed range in order to improve RC characteristics by tuning the dielectric constant and since such optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it has been held that the Applicant must show that a particular range is critical, general by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimension.
Regarding Claim 5, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first surface layer ranges from 10 A to 50 A (Wei et al., [0024], note that a portion of the bonding layer can be chosen such that it reads on the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 6, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 5, wherein a thickness of the first bonding layer is larger than 100A (Wei et al., [0024]. It is noted that where the claimed ranges “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), see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein the carbon atomic concentration of the first surface layer is higher than or equal to 40% within a thickness of the first surface layer equal to 30 A (Andideh et al., Column 1, Lines 30-34. It is noted that where the claimed ranges “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), see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein the first bonding layer comprises one of carbon-doped silicon nitride, carbon-doped silicon oxynitride, or nitrogen-doped silicon oxycarbide (Wei et al., [0020] and [0023], Andideh et al., Column 2, Lines 30-33, Column 3, Lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 11, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 1, further comprising a device layer arranged on a first substrate and disposed between the first bonding layer and the first substrate (Wei et al., Figure 1H, a layer of the device elements and/or interconnects in 102 and/or 106, [0017-0019]);
and a composition of the first bonding layer approaches a composition of the device layer near an interface between the first bonding layer and the device layer (Wei et al, [0019-0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein: the first bonding layer comprises a plurality of sub bonding layers stacked with one another; and the plurality of sub bonding layers comprise different compositions (Wei et al. Figure 1H, 108/110, [0019-0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein: the first bonding layer is doped with at least one element of silicon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, or fluorine (Wei et al., [0020]).
Claims 2, 4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (U.S. 2019/0096830) in view of Andideh et al. (U.S. 6,350,670) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Nguyen et al. (U.S. 2013/0175697).
Regarding Claim 2, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further disclose that the bonding surface of the first bonding layer is configured to contact the second bonding layer (Wei et al., Figure 1H, first bonding layer 110 or 108/110), but they do not explicitly disclose wherein a bonding surface of the first bonding layer comprises a maximal value of the carbon atomic concentration. Nguyen et al. discloses a device in the same field of endeavor wherein a bonding surface of a first bonding layer comprising a maximal value of the carbon atomic concentration (Nguyen et al., layer 130, surface 136, Figures 1 and 5, [0023],[0030-0031]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the bonding surface of the first bonding layer to comprise a maximal value of the carbon atomic concentration in Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al., further in view of Nguyen et al. in order to provide low dielectric material with good mechanical strength and enhanced diffusion properties (Nguyen et al. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein: the first bonding layer is formed above a first substrate (Wei et al., Figure 1H, substrate 102), the bonding surface being configured to contact the second bonding layer (first bonding layer 110 or 110/108), but they do not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon atomic concentration of the first bonding layer increases gradually along a direction from the first substrate to the bonding surface of the first bonding layer.
Nguyen et al. discloses a device in the same field of endeavor wherein a carbon atomic concentration of a bonding layer increases gradually along a direction from a substrate to a bonding surface of the bonding layer (Nguyen et al., layer 130, surface 136, Figures 1 and 5, [0023], [0030-0031]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the carbon atomic concentration in the first bonding layer to increase gradually along a direction from the first substate to the bonding surface of the first bonding layer, in Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al., further in view of Nguyen et al. in order to provide low dielectric material with good mechanical strength and enhanced diffusion properties (Nguyen et al. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al. further discloses the pre-bond semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein:
the first bonding layer is formed above a first substrate (Wei et al., Figure 1H, first substrate 102), the bonding surface being configured to contact the second bonding layer, but they do not explicitly disclose wherein a density of the first bonding layer changes gradually along a direction from the bonding surface to the first substrate.
Nguyen et al. discloses a device in the same field of endeavor wherein a density of a first bonding layer changes gradually along a direction from a bonding surface to a first substrate (Nguyen et al., layer 130, surface 136, Figures 1 and 5, [0023], [0028-0029]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first bonding layer to have a density that changes gradually along a direction from a bonding surface to a first substrate in Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al., further in view of Nguyen et al. in order to provide low dielectric material with good mechanical strength and enhanced diffusion properties (Nguyen et al., [0020]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wei et al. in view of Andideh et al., further in view of Nguyen et al. further discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 9, wherein the density of the first bonding layer comprises one of:
gradually increasing along the direction (Nguyen et al., layer 130, surface 136, Figures 1 and 5, [0023], [0028-0029]); or
gradually decreasing along the direction; or
increasing first and then decreasing along the direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, the Applicant argues that the Andideh reference fails to disclose that “the carbon atomic concentration of the surface layer is high than or equal to 35%” because “the resulting carbon concentration after via 104 formation is unknown”. However, the Andideh reference discloses that the process does not remove a significant amount of carbon from the layer so that the layer’s dielectric constant is not significantly altered (Andideh et al., Column 4, Lines 11-22) and further discloses that the layer consists essentially of a layer that includes between about 5 and about 50 atom % carbon. Therefore the resulting carbon concentration is known and the arguments are not persuasive. Furthermore, if the Andideh reference’s dielectric layer could not have a known carbon atomic concentration after processing (such as bonding to a second bonding layer) then the Application would run into enablement issues, as the bonding layer of the present application is disclosed to have changing atomic ratios (“The element carbon in the first bonding layer 200 may exist in the form of methyl group (—CH.sub.3), the methyl group (—CH.sub.3) may be oxidized to be hydroxyl group (—OH) after treatments, such as an oxidation treatment and a plasma activation treatment, performed before the bonding process, and the amount of hydroxyl increases accordingly. Finally in the bonding process, the amount of Si—O bonds at the bonding interface is increased for enhancing the bonding strength [0042]). Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Abbigale Boyle whose telephone number is 571-270-7919. The Examiner can normally be reached from 11 A.M to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith, can be reached at 571-272-2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance form a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Abbigale Boyle
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ABBIGALE A BOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights