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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2026 considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The indicated allowability of claims 15-22 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Tanaka (US 2020/0294971) in view of Chae (US 2016/0020197). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
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.
Claims 1,2,5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2020/0294971), and further in view of Koike (US 20100155951).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an element in fig. 10 or 11 comprising:
a dielectric bonding layer (18) having a cavity extending at least partially through a thickness of the dielectric bonding layer (refer to a thickness from layers 18b-18d-18a) from a surface of the dielectric bonding layer (NOTE: the cavity is extending from a upper surface of layer 18b to sidewall surface of layer 18a);
a conductive feature (37b) at least partially disposed in the cavity, the conductive feature (37b) having a contact surface (refer to an upper surface of 37a);
a metal layer (35) disposed below a bottom surface of the conductive feature (37b) opposite the contact surface (refer to an upper surface of 37a); and
a diffusion barrier layer (37a) disposed between the conductive feature (37b) and a portion of the dielectric bonding layer (18b-18d-18a), the diffusion barrier layer (37a) comprising a barrier metal (NOTE: In par. 72, the barrier metal layer 37a is a titanium layer, a tantalum layer, a manganese layer, a titanium nitride film, a tantalum nitride film, a manganese nitride film, a titanium oxide film, a tantalum oxide film, or a manganese oxide film, for example, and it is a titanium layer herein) ,wherein the barrier metal of the diffusion barrier layer has an oxidation propensity that is greater than an oxidation propensity of the conductive feature (NOTE: par. 72, the pad material layer 37b is a metal layer including a Cu layer, for example, and it is a Cu layer herein).
Koike discloses that the manganese oxide has a higher oxidation propensity than copper (see pars. 91-92).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to include the teaching of Koike in the teaching of Tanaka so that it prevents the copper to be oxidation (see par. 92).
Tanaka’s diffusion barrier is not between the conductive feature and the metal layer.
Koike further teaches the diffusion barrier layer (53) is encircling all around the conductive feature (54) (see fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to include diffusion barrier is between the conductive feature and the metal layer as taught by Koike in the teaching of Tanaka in order to prevent copper from the conductive feature intruding into the metal layer so that it prevents a decrease in electric property of the interlayer (see par. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka and Koike teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the barrier metal (refer to titanium layer) has a diffusivity with the dielectric bonding layer greater than a diffusivity of tantalum or tantalum nitride with the dielectric layer (NOTE: titanium is commonly known diffuses more rapidly than tantalum as disclosed https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA228217.pdf#:~:text=%2D%20the%20titanium%20diffuses%20more%20rapidly%20than,markers%2C%20which%20may%20be%20prejudicial%20to%20the see page 13).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the dielectric bonding layer (18) comprises silicon oxide (see par. 38), the diffusion barrier layer (37a) comprises a barrier compound including the barrier metal and material of the dielectric bonding layer, the barrier compound comprises manganese silicate or a manganese compound (see par. 72).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the barrier metal comprises manganese, nickel or titanium (NOTE: In par. 72, the barrier metal layer 37a is a titanium layer, a tantalum layer, a manganese layer, a titanium nitride film, a tantalum nitride film, a manganese nitride film, a titanium oxide film, a tantalum oxide film, or a manganese oxide film, for example, and it is a titanium layer herein).
Claims 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Koike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chae (US 2017/0133325).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the diffusion barrier layer comprises a material that diffuses into the dielectric layer in response to an annealing process.
Chae teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the diffusion barrier layer comprises a material that diffuses into the dielectric layer in response to an annealing process (see fig. 8 and pars. 45-47).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the diffusion barrier layer comprises a material that diffuses into the dielectric layer in response to an annealing process as taught by Chae in the combined teaching of Tanaka and Koike because it will a stop reacting and growing when the flow of manganese ions is blocked (see par. 47).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the barrier metal is configured to form alloy with the conductive feature.
Chae teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the barrier metal (refer to diffusion ions 20 filled inside the metal filling) is configured to form alloy with the conductive feature (18) (see fig. 3 and par. 36).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the barrier metal is configured to the barrier metal is configured to form alloy with the conductive feature as taught by Chae in the combined teaching of Tanaka and Koike because it will a stop reacting and growing when the flow of manganese ions is blocked (see par. 47).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the element is hybrid direct bonded to a second element (see fig. 3).
Tanaka and Koike do not teach “the diffusion barrier layer comprises a metal silicate material including the barrier metal.”
Chae teaches the same field of an endeavor the diffusion barrier layer comprises a metal silicate material including the barrier metal (see par. 39).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the diffusion barrier layer comprises a metal silicate material including the barrier metal as taught by Chae in the combined teaching of Tanaka and Koike because it will a stop reacting and growing when the flow of manganese ions is blocked (see par. 47).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Koike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang ‘361 (US 9520361).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for a portion of the diffusion barrier layer is further disposed on the surface of the dielectric bonding layer, wherein the portion of the diffusion barrier layer is configured to bond to a dielectric layer of another element.
Kang ‘361 teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a portion of the diffusion barrier layer (refer to a portion 174 of the diffusion barrier layer 170 as shown in fig. 12-13) is further disposed on the surface of the dielectric bonding layer (upper surface of 260) (see fig. 15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a portion of the diffusion barrier layer is further disposed on the surface of the dielectric bonding layer, wherein the portion of the diffusion barrier layer is configured to bond to a dielectric layer of another element as taught by Kang ‘361 in the teaching of Tanaka and Koike because the diffusion of the metal between neighboring conductive patterns structures may be reduced/prevented by a shield pattern surrounding the conductive pattern structures (see col. 4, lines 2-5).
Claims 3, 7,9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Koike as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Oda (20210375791).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for a thickness of the barrier metal is in a range from 1 nm to 100 nm.
Oda teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a thickness of the barrier metal is in a range from 10 nm to 300 nm (see par.80).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a thickness of the barrier metal is in a range from 1 nm to 100 nm as taught by Oda in the teaching of Tanaka an Koike so that it provides an enough thickness of the barrier metal to prevent metal from the conductive feature migration into the dielectric.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for a barrier layer at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer and the conductive feature.
Oda teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a barrier layer (988A) at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer (976) and the conductive feature (988B) (see fig. 8A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a barrier layer at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer and the conductive feature as taught by Oda in the teaching of Tanaka and Koike in order to isolate the conductive feature from the surrounding material to prevent metal migration into the dielectric.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka, Koike and Oda teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Oda teaches the barrier layer (988A) is disposed such that the barrier layer (988A) completely separates the conductive feature (988B) and the diffusion barrier layer (976) (see fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka, Koike and Oda teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Oda teaches the barrier layer comprises the barrier layer comprises tungsten nitride, tantalum nitride and/or titanium nitride (see par. 90).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Koike as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gao (20200075534)
Regarding claim 11, Koike and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the metal layer is a redistribution layer.
Gao teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a buried metal conductive layer (208) formed below the conductive pad (208), which is a redistribution layer (see fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the buried metal layer as a redistribution layer as taught by Gao in the teaching of Tanaka and Koike in order to enable low temperature direct metal to metal bonding for advanced 3D integration.
Claim 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2020/0294971) in view of Chae (US 20170133325).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches a bonded structure in figs. 7B, 10 or 11 comprising: bonded structure comprising:
a first element (W2 in fig. 7B) comprising:
a dielectric bonding layer (18) having a cavity extending at least partially through a thickness of the dielectric bonding layer (refer to a thickness from layers 18b-18d-18a) from a surface of the dielectric bonding layer (NOTE: the cavity is extending from a upper surface of layer 18b to sidewall surface of layer 18a); and
a second element (W1 in fig. 7B) comprising:
a second dielectric layer (16) directly bonded to the dielectric bonding layer (17) of the first element (see fig. 1); and
a second conductive feature (41) directly bonded to the contact surface of the conductive feature (37) of the first element without an intervening adhesive (see fig. 1).
In another embodiment of wafer 2 in fig. 10 or 11, comprising:
a conductive feature (37b) at least partially disposed in the cavity, the conductive feature (37a) having a contact surface (refer to upper surface); and
a diffusion barrier layer (37a) between the conductive feature (37b) and at least a portion of the dielectric bonding layer (18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a conductive feature at least partially disposed in the cavity, the conductive feature having a contact surface; a diffusion barrier layer between the conductive feature and a portion of the dielectric bonding layer as shown in one of the embodiment of fig. 10 or 11 in the teaching of fig. 7B of Tanaka in order to provide a diffusion prevention.
Tanaka does not teach the diffusion barrier layer comprising a barrier metal diffused into and compounded with the dielectric bonding layer.
Chae teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the diffusion barrier layer comprising a barrier metal diffused into and compounded with the dielectric bonding layer (see fig. 8 and pars. 45-47).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the diffusion barrier layer comprises a material that diffuses into the dielectric layer in response to an annealing process as taught by Chae in the combined teaching of Tanaka because it will a stop reacting and growing when the flow of manganese ions is blocked (see par. 47).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka and Chae teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the dielectric bonding layer (17) of the first element is directly bonded to the second dielectric layer (16) of the second element (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka and Chae teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the conductive feature (37b) and the second conductive feature (41) comprise copper (see par. 72), the barrier metal comprises manganese (see par. 72), and the dielectric bonding layer (16/17) comprises silicon oxide (see pars. 21-22), and the diffusion barrier layer comprises manganese silicate or a manganese compound (see par. 72).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka and Chae teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the barrier metal comprises nickel (see par. 49).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2020/0294971) in view of Chae (US 2017/0133325) as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Oda (US 2021/0375791).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka and Chae teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for a barrier layer at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer and the conductive feature.
Oda teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a barrier layer (988A) at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer (976) and the conductive feature (988B) (fig. 8A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a barrier layer at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer and the conductive feature as taught by Oda in the teaching of Tanaka and Chae in order to isolate the conductive feature from the surrounding material to prevent metal migration into the dielectric.
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka, Chae and Oda teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Oda teaches the barrier layer (988A) is disposed such that the barrier layer (988A) completely separates the conductive feature (988B) and the diffusion barrier layer (976) (see fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 21, Tanaka, Chae and Oda teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Oda teaches the barrier layer comprises metal nitride (see par. 101).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Chae as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Gao (20200075534)
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka and Chae teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the barrier metal (37a) is present at an interface between the conductive feature (37b) and a metal layer (35) (see fig. 10 or 11).
Tanaka or Chae does not mention the metal layer is a redistribution layer.
Gao teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a buried metal conductive layer (208) formed below the conductive pad (208), which is a redistribution layer (see fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the buried metal layer as a redistribution layer as taught by Gao in the teaching of Tanaka and Chae in order to enable low temperature direct metal to metal bonding for advanced 3D integration.
Claim 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2020/0294971) in view of Koike (US 20100155951).
Regarding claim 23, Tanaka teaches a bonded structure in fig. 7B comprising:
a first element (W2 in fig. 7B) comprising:
a dielectric bonding layer (18) having a cavity extending at least partially through a thickness of the dielectric bonding layer (refer to a thickness from layers 18b-18d-18a) from a surface of the dielectric bonding layer (NOTE: the cavity is extending from a upper surface of layer 18b to sidewall surface of layer 18a); and
a second element (refer to W1 in fig. 7B) comprising:
a second dielectric layer (18) bonded to the dielectric bonding layer of the first element (18); and
a second conductive feature (41) directly bonded to the contact surface of the conductive feature of the first element without an intervening adhesive (see fig. 7B).
Fig. 7B does not show a diffusion barrier layer between the conductive feature and a portion of the dielectric bonding layer, the diffusion barrier layer comprising manganese.
In another embodiment of wafer 2 in fig. 10 or 11, comprising:
a conductive feature (37b) at least partially disposed in the cavity, the conductive feature (37a) having a contact surface (refer to upper surface);
a metal layer (35) disposed below a bottom surface of the conductive feature (37b) opposite the contact surface (refer to an upper surface of 37a); and
a diffusion barrier layer (37a) disposed between the conductive feature (37b) and at least a portion of the dielectric bonding layer (18), the diffusion barrier layer comprising manganese (see par. 72).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a conductive feature at least partially disposed in the cavity, the conductive feature having a contact surface; a diffusion barrier layer between the conductive feature and a portion of the dielectric bonding layer, the diffusion barrier layer comprising manganese as shown in one of the embodiment of fig. 10 or 11 in the teaching of fig. 7B of Tanaka in order to provide a diffusion prevention.
Tanaka’s diffusion barrier layer is not between the conductive feature and the metal layer.
Koike further teaches the diffusion barrier layer (53) is encircling all around the conductive feature (54) (see fig. 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to include the diffusion barrier layer between the conductive feature and the metal layer as taught by Koike in the teaching of Tanaka in order to prevent copper from the conductive feature intruding into the metal layer so that it prevents a decrease in electric property of the interlayer (see par. 8).
Regarding claim 24, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the dielectric bonding layer of the first element (18) is directly bonded to the second dielectric layer (15) of the second element (see fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 25, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Tanaka teaches the conductive feature (37b) comprises copper, the dielectric bonding layer (37a) comprises silicon oxide, and the diffusion barrier layer comprises manganese silicate or a manganese compound (see par. 72).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Koike as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Oda (20200075534)
Regarding claim 26, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for a barrier layer at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer and the conductive feature.
Oda teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a barrier layer (988A) at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer (976) and the conductive feature (988B) (see fig. 8A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a barrier layer at least partially between the diffusion barrier layer and the conductive feature as taught by Oda in the teaching of Tanaka and Koike in order to isolate the conductive feature from the surrounding material to prevent metal migration into the dielectric.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Koike as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Gao (20200075534).
Regarding claim 27, Koike and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the metal layer is a redistribution layer.
Gao teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a buried metal conductive layer (208) formed below the conductive pad (208), which is a redistribution layer (see fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the buried metal layer as a redistribution layer as taught by Gao in the teaching of Tanaka and Koike in order to enable low temperature direct metal to metal bonding for advanced 3D integration.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Koike as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Chae (US 2017/0133325).
Regarding claim 28, Tanaka and Koike teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the barrier metal is configured to form alloy with the conductive feature.
Chae teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the barrier metal (refer to diffusion ions 20 filled inside the metal filling) is configured to form alloy with the conductive feature (18) (see fig. 3 and par. 36).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the barrier metal is configured to the barrier metal is configured to form alloy with the conductive feature as taught by Chae in the combined teaching of Tanaka and Koike because it will a stop reacting and growing when the flow of manganese ions is blocked (see par. 47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the barrier layer is not disposed on a bottom surface of the cavity, the barrier layer is disposed partially along sidewalls of the cavity from the surface of the dielectric bonding layer.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niki Tram Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on (703)872-9306. 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, 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.
/NIKI H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights