Attorney’s Docket Number: 102351-2066 A01727/US13120 ASE04757-US
Filing Date: 3/1/2023
Inventors: Karda et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 4/27/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for a 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.
Species Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 4, reading on figure 2C, in the reply filed on 4/27/2026, is acknowledged. The applicant indicated that claims 1-7, 9-12 and 21-29 read on the elected species. Claim 11, however, reads on a non-elected species of the invention. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 7, 10, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 25, the claims recite a conductive layer (CL) having a sidewall with a curved surface concave toward a center of the CL. The specification describes such a structure in connection with the elected embodiment of fig. 2C. See, e.g., par. [0048], which states that the sidewall 110s1 of the CL includes a curved surface concave toward a center of the CL. However, the specification does not adequately teach how to make or obtain the claimed concave sidewall geometry.
The specification discloses a manufacturing process for forming an interconnect structure (IS) including a CL, a barrier layer (BL), a moderating layer (ML), and a bonding layer (EBL). See pars. [0082]-[0087]. The disclosed process explains that portions of the CL 110 may be consumed during a replacement reaction such that a sidewall of the CL becomes recessed with respect to a sidewall of the BL 120. However, the specification does not identify any process step, etching process, deposition condition, replacement reaction condition, geometric parameter, or other fabrication technique that would produce a sidewall having the claimed curved surface concave toward the center of the CL.
Further, the specification describes a closely related embodiment including substantially the same layer structure, materials and recessed sidewalls, but the recessed sidewalls do not exhibit the claimed concave geometry. See paragraphs [0044]-[0046] and fig. 2B. The specification does not explain what differences in fabrication conditions or processing would result in the embodiment of fig. 2C having concave sidewalls while the embodiment of fig. 2B does not.
Additionally, where the specification intends to explain the formation of a curved feature, it provides corresponding fabrication details. For example, par. [0052] explains that a curved top surface of a CL may be formed by a polishing operation and may result from a dishing effect. No comparable disclosure is provided for the claimed concave sidewall geometry.
Accordingly, although the specification describes the appearance of the claimed sidewall structure, it does not reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make a CL having the claimed concave sidewall geometry, nor does it provide sufficient guidance for determining what fabrication conditions would produce the claimed structure without undue experimentation. Therefore, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed invention recited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites that a portion of a bottom surface of the BL is concave toward a center of the BL. The specification describes such a structure in connection with the elected embodiment of fig. 2C. See, e.g., par. [0049], which states that a portion of the bottom surface 120b of the BL is exposed from the CL 110 and is concave toward a center of the BL. However, the specification does not adequately teach how to make or obtain the claimed concave bottom surface geometry.
The specification discloses a manufacturing process for forming an IS including a CL, a BL, a ML, and a EBL. See pars. [0082]-[0087]. The disclosed process explains that portions of the CL 110 may be consumed during a replacement reaction such that a sidewall of the CL becomes recessed with respect to a sidewall of the BL 120. However, the specification does not identify any process step, etching process, deposition condition, replacement reaction condition, geometric parameter, or other fabrication technique that would produce a bottom surface of the BL having the claimed concave geometry.
Further, the specification describes a closely related embodiment including substantially the same layer structure, materials, and manufacturing process, but wherein the BL 120 does not exhibit the claimed concave bottom surface. See pars. [0044]-[0046] and fig. 2B. The specification does not explain what differences in fabrication conditions, structural parameters, or processing would result in the embodiment of fig. 2C having a bottom surface of the BL that is concave toward the center of the barrier while the embodiment of fig. 2B does not.
Additionally, although the specification describes the geometry of the claimed feature, the specification does not explain the mechanism by which the concave bottom surface is formed. The disclosed manufacturing process describes consumption of the conductive layer during a replacement reaction, but does not explain how such processing would produce the claimed concave geometry of the barrier layer. Nor does the specification identify any additional processing operation that would form the claimed structure.
Accordingly, although the specification describes the appearance of the claimed barrier geometry, it does not reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make a barrier having a bottom surface that is concave toward the center of the barrier, nor does it provide sufficient guidance for determining what fabrication conditions would produce the claimed structure without undue experimentation. Therefore, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed invention recited in claim 10.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites a EBL comprising a central portion and a peripheral portion adjacent to the central portion, wherein a thickness of the central portion is less than a thickness of the peripheral portion.
The specification describes such a EBL in connection with the elected embodiment of fig. 2C. See, e.g., par. [0050], which states that the EBL includes a central portion 140C and a peripheral portion 140P, and that a thickness 140T1 of the central portion is less than a thickness 140T2 of the peripheral portion. However, the specification does not adequately teach how to make or obtain a EBL having the claimed thickness profile.
The specification discloses various fabrication processes, including forming conductive, barrier, and moderating layers and subsequently forming a bonding layer by an electroless plating process. See, e.g., pars. [0082]-[0086]. However, the specification does not identify any process parameters, fabrication conditions, material characteristics, plating conditions, geometric relationships, or other manufacturing techniques that would produce a EBL having a central portion thinner than a peripheral portion.
Further, the specification describes another embodiment having substantially the same layer stack and general structure, including the CL 110, BL 120, ML 130, and EBL 140, but wherein the EBL does not exhibit the claimed thickness relationship. See paragraphs [0044]-[0046] and fig. 2B. The specification does not explain what differences in fabrication conditions or structure would cause the EBL of fig. 2C to have a central portion thinner than the peripheral portion while the EBL of fig. 2B does not.
Accordingly, although the specification describes the appearance of the claimed EBL, it does not reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make a EBL having the claimed thickness profile, nor does it provide sufficient guidance for determining what fabrication conditions would produce the claimed structure without undue experimentation. Therefore, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed invention recited in claim 26.
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.
Claims 1-4, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maekawa (US 2020/0020660).
Regarding claim 1, Maekawa (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows all aspects of the instant invention including an IS 2/7 comprising:
A substrate 1
A CL 2 over the substrate and having a top surface
A EBL 6 over the top surface of the CL
A ML 4 between the CL and EBL, and configured to mitigate an increase in surface roughness of the top surface of the CL during an electroless plating process of the EBL
Regarding claim 2, Maekawa (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the metal reactivity of the EBL 6 (e.g., par.[0054) is less than that of the CL 2 (e.g., par.[0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Maekawa (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows the structure further comprising a BL 3 between the CL 2 and the ML 4, wherein the reactivity of the EBL 6 (e.g., par.[0054]) is less than that of the BL (e.g., par.0040/l.9).
Regarding claim 4, Maekawa shows that the reactivity of the EBL 6 (e.g., par.[0054]) is greater than that of the ML 4 (e.g., par.[0043]).
Regarding claim 28, Maekawa (see, e.g., par. [0054]) shows that the thickness of the EBL 6 is 1-10 µm.
Regarding claim 29, Maekawa shows that the EBL 6 is free of a dendrite structure. Maekawa shows a EBL 6 formed on an intermediate ML 4 having a lower reactivity than the EBL and positioned between the EBL and a more reactive CL 2 (see, e.g., fig. 1 and pars. [0054], [0042], [0060]). Applicant’s specification explains that such an arrangement mitigates the replacement reaction responsible for dendrite formation and results in a EBL free of dendrite structures (see, e.g., par.[0041]). Accordingly, the dendrite-free characteristic is considered an inherent property of the IS 2/7 of Maekawa.
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.
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 1-3, 9, 5, 6, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdock (US 2015/0348925) in view of Maekawa.
Regarding claim 1, Surdock (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows most aspects of the instant invention including an IS 20 comprising:
A substrate 30
A CL 32 over the substrate and having a top surface, and
A ML 36 over the CL
Surdock further teaches that additional metallization layers may be incorporated into the IS and discloses various metallurgical layer arrangements including a Cu/Ni/Pd stack (e.g., Surdock, par. [0036]). However, Surdock does not expressly disclose a EBL disposed over the CL and the ML.
Maekawa teaches an IS 2/7 including a Cu/Ni/Pd/Pt 2/3/4/5 structure and an outer EBL 6 made of Ag (Maekawa, pars. [0033], [0053]-[0054]). Maekawa further teaches that the EBL 6 is formed as an outer layer of the bump because it exhibits excellent connection reliability. Additionally, Maekawa teaches that more intermediate layers may be provided (par. [0045]) and that appropriate selection of intermediate layers improves depositability and covering properties during electroless plating operations (pars. [0029], [0043], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made to modify the interconnect structure of Surdock by providing the EBL layer of Maekawa to improve the connection reliability. Such modification merely involves incorporating a known metallization layer for its known purpose into a known interconnect structure and would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to the limitation that the ML is configured to mitigate an increase in surface roughness of the top surface of the CL during an electroless plating process for forming the EBL, the combination of Surdock and Maekawa renders this limitation obvious. Maekawa teaches that the inclusion of intermediate metallization layers affects plating behavior and improves depositability and covering properties during electroless plating processes (pars. [0029], [0043], [0047]). Furthermore, applicant’s specification attributes the claimed roughness-mitigating functionality to the relative reactivities of the CL material, the ML material, and the EBL material. The resulting IS structure of Surdock/Maekawa (Cu/Ni/Pd/Pt/Ag) includes the same relative reactivity relationships between the layers described in the specification. Consequently, the modified structure would inherently be capable of mitigating increases in surface roughness during electroless formation of the EBL, regardless of whether Surdock or Maekawa expressly recognized such roughness mitigation as a benefit.
Regarding claim 2, Maekawa teaches that the metal reactivity of the EBL 6 (e.g., par.0053) is less than that of the CL 2 (e.g., par.0060/l.11).
Regarding claim 3, Maekawa shows the IS further comprising a BL 3 between the CL 2 and the ML 5, wherein the reactivity of the EBL 6 (e.g., par.[0053]) is less than that of the BL 3 (e.g., par.[0040]/l.9).
Regarding claim 9, Surdock (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows that the width of the CL 32 is less than that of the BL 34.
Regarding claim 5, Surdock (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows that the width of the CL 32 is less than the width of the ML 36.
Regarding claim 6, Maekawa (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the EBL layer 6 is formed over the CL 2. Surdock (see, e.g., fig. 5) shows that the width of the CL 32 is less than the width of the layers formed over it.
Regarding claim 24, Surdock shows the IS further comprising a BL 34 formed between the CL 32 and the ML 36, wherein the width of the BL 34 is less than the width of the ML 36. Maekawa (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the EBL 6 is formed over the CL 2; Surdock shows that the width of the CL 32 is less than the width of the layers formed over it.
Regarding claim 27, Surdock teaches an IS comprising a CL including copper and further teaches metallization stacks including Cu/Ni/Pd (e.g., par.0036/ll.13-14). Surdock does not explicitly teach a silver bonding layer disposed over the metallization stack.
Maekawa teaches bumps comprising Cu/Ni/Pd/Pt/Ag stacks and teaches that Ag provides excellent connection reliability (e.g., par.[0054]). Thus, Maekawa teaches silver as a known bonding material for conductive bump structures. Maekawa further teaches forming a silver outer layer over an underlying Cu/Ni/Pd/Pt metallization stack, demonstrating that silver may be added as a terminal bonding layer above a noble-metal finish layer to obtain the known connection reliability and connectivity benefits associated with silver.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of filing the invention to include Maekawa’s silver outer bonding over Surdock’s Cu/Ni/Pd structure to obtain excellent connection reliability.
Surdock (e.g., par.[0036]/ll.13-14) separately teaches that Cu/Ni/Au is an alternative metallization stack having performance comparable to Cu/Ni/Pd. That is, Surdock teaches Au and Pd as alternative equivalent noble-metal layers above the Cu/Ni structure, while Maekawa teaches Ag as a suitable outer connection layer above a Cu/Ni/Pd stack. Accordingly, a PHOSITA at the time of filing the invention would have recognized that the same silver outer bonding layer could likewise be provided over Surdock’s Cu/Ni/Au structure, yielding a Cu/Ni/Au/Ag arrangement with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 21-23 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.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights