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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed on 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Son (Son, Seongmin, et al. “Characteristics of Plasma-Activated Dielectric Film Surfaces for Direct Wafer Bonding.” Proceedings / Electronic Components Conference, IEEE, 2020, pp. 2025–32, https://doi.org/10.1109/ECTC32862.2020.00315.), Suga (Suga, T., et al. “Combined Process for Wafer Direct Bonding by Means of the Surface Activation Method.” 2004 54th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, IEEE, 2004, pp. 484-490 Vol.1, https://doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2004.1319383.), and Farrens (US6908832B2).
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 (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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (Son, Seongmin, et al. “Characteristics of Plasma-Activated Dielectric Film Surfaces for Direct Wafer Bonding.” Proceedings / Electronic Components Conference, IEEE, 2020, pp. 2025–32, https://doi.org/10.1109/ECTC32862.2020.00315.), and further in view of Suga (Suga, T., et al. “Combined Process for Wafer Direct Bonding by Means of the Surface Activation Method.” 2004 54th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, IEEE, 2004, pp. 484-490 Vol.1, https://doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2004.1319383.) and Sharon (US6908832B2).
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches a method of fabricating a semiconductor structure, comprising:
providing a first substrate having a first surface and a second substrate having a second surface, the first surface and the second surface each including a dielectric layer (Son, Fig. 1, step (i), dielectric films deposited on each of two wafers for dielectric-to-dielectric bonding; p. 2026);
treating the first surface and the second surface, including:
performing an oxygen plasma treatment to oxidize the dielectric layer with the hydrogen-terminated groups (Son, Fig. 1, step (iii) oxygen plasma treatment; Table 1, “O2 RIE”; p. 2028, the O2 plasma substantially oxidizes the dielectric surface to form a surface SiOx layer); and
performing a nitrogen plasma treatment to the oxidized dielectric layer to form a treated dielectric layer (Son, Fig. 1, step (iii) nitrogen plasma treatment; Table 1, “N2 RIE”; p. 2028, N2 plasma activation enhances surface reactivity of the dielectric film);
rinsing the first surface (Son, Fig. 1, step (iii) DI water rinse) and the second surface to hydrolyze the treated dielectric layer (Son, p. 2028, plasma treatment with DI hydration forms hydroxyl (-OH) groups in the surface layer; Eq. (1), Si-OH + OH-Si → Si-O-Si + H2O); and
coupling the hydrolyzed and treated dielectric layer on the first surface with the hydrolyzed and treated dielectric layer on the second surface (Son, Fig. 1, step (iv) wafer bonding).
But Son does not expressly disclose performing the nitrogen plasma treatment on the oxygen-plasma-oxidized dielectric layer in an ordered sequence on the same surface, Son instead disclosing the oxygen plasma and the nitrogen plasma as alternative single treatments.
However, Suga teaches performing the nitrogen plasma treatment on the oxygen-plasma-oxidized dielectric layer in an ordered sequence on the same surface (Suga, p. 484, Abstract; pp. 485–487, a surface is activated by oxygen RIE plasma and is subsequently exposed to nitrogen radical activation, forming a silicon oxynitride (SiOxNy) more hydrophilic Si-OH and yields a higher bonding strength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the nitrogen plasma treatment of wafer bonding method of Son on the oxygen-plasma-oxidized dielectric layer, in the sequence taught by Suga, in order to form a more hydrophilic silicon-oxynitride surface and thereby increase the dielectric bonding energy sought by Son. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143.
Son in view of Suga does not expressly disclose performing a hydrogen plasma treatment to form hydrogen-terminated groups on the dielectric layer.
However, Sharon teaches performing a hydrogen plasma treatment to form hydrogen-terminated groups on the dielectric layer (Sharon, claim 2, “said plasma comprises hydrogen bearing species”; claim 4, “argon with hydrogen”), which provides surface species termination control of the bonding surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the hydrogen plasma treatment of wafer bonding method of Sharon on the dielectric surface of Son to form hydrogen-terminated groups and activate the surface prior to the oxygen plasma treatment, yielding a predictable improvement in surface activation. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143. Consistent therewith, Son confirms that plasma activation produces a surface incorporating hydrogen in the form of hydroxyl (-OH) groups (Son, p. 2028, Sec. C).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Son in view of Suga and Sharon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer includes a silicon-containing dielectric material (Son, p. 2026, the dielectric films are SiO and SiCN films).
Regarding claim 3, Son in view of Suga and Sharon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer includes a carbon-containing group, a nitrogen-containing group, or both (Son, p. 2026, the dielectric films include SiCN, a silicon-carbon-nitride film containing both carbon- and nitrogen-containing groups).
Regarding claim 4, Son in view of Suga and Sharon teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the dielectric layer includes the carbon-containing group (Son, SiCN films, p. 2026), and wherein performing the hydrogen plasma treatment forms the hydrogen-terminated groups that include -CH2 (Sharon teaches performing a hydrogen plasma treatment on the bonding surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the hydrogen plasma treatment of Sharon, applied to the carbon-containing dielectric surface of Son, forms -CHx terminated groups, including -CH2, as hydrogen plasma is known to passivate carbon-containing surface bonds by hydrogen termination. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 5, Son in view of Suga and Sharon teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the dielectric layer includes the nitrogen-containing group (Son, SiCN films, p. 2026), and wherein performing the hydrogen plasma treatment forms the hydrogen-terminated groups that include -NH (Sharon teaches performing a hydrogen plasma treatment on the bonding surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the hydrogen plasma treatment of Sharon, applied to the nitrogen-containing dielectric surface of Son, forms -NH terminated groups, as hydrogen plasma is known to passivate nitrogen-containing surface bonds by hydrogen termination. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, Son in view of Suga and Sharon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the oxygen plasma treatment forms a volatile compound. (Son, p. 2028, the O2 plasma oxidizes the dielectric surface. As set forth above, the hydrogen plasma treatment forms hydrogen-terminated groups on the dielectric surface, and the subsequent oxygen plasma treatment oxidizes the dielectric layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that such oxygen plasma oxidation of the hydrogen-terminated surface groups inherently forms a volatile compound, as the oxidation and removal of these surface species produces volatile byproducts. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7, Son in view of Suga and Sharon teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the volatile compound includes HNO, CH₂O, or both (As set forth above with respect to claims 4 and 5, the hydrogen plasma treatment forms -CH₂ groups on the carbon-containing dielectric and -NH groups on the nitrogen-containing dielectric).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the subsequent oxygen plasma oxidation of these surface groups produces the corresponding volatile oxidation products, CH₂O from the -CH₂ groups and HNO from the -NH groups, as the inherent and inevitable result of oxidizing such carbon- and nitrogen-containing surface species. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHAE KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1844. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at (571) 272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JAHAE KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights