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 .
Claim Status
The examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1 and 15. Claims 4-6, 10, and 16 have been cancelled.
Specification
The amendment filed 5 February 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “...apertures having a size of 1 mm in diameter and 10 mm in depth” [0021] and “...apertures having a size of 1 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length” [0054].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Apertures with 1 mm in diameter and 10 mm depth ([0021]) or length ([0054]) were not previously described in the specification, and represent new matter.
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 1-2, 7-8, 11-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 20240304594 A1, hereinafter “Yamauchi”), in view of Yamauchi et al (JP 2016117092 A, hereinafter “Yamauchi2”), and further in view of Economou (”Modeling and Simulation of Fast Neutral Beam Sources for Materials Processing”, Plasma Processes and Polymers, 2009, 6, 308-319, hereinafter “Economou”), and further in view of Tan et al (US 20220254649 A1, hereinafter “Tan”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Yamauchi discloses a method of bonding two pieces of semiconductor materials ([0113]), which comprises: providing the two pieces of semiconductor materials each having a surface that is suitable for molecular bonding ([0113]); and activating at least one surface monolayer of one of the two pieces of semiconductor materials by irradiating (a) neutral beam onto the surface(s) being activated while controlling activation parameters of the neutral beam to provide kinetic energy to the pieces sufficient to create an activated region of controlled thickness beneath the surface(s) being activated (W1 and W2 in Fig. 16, activated to create dangling bonds [0126]).
In addition, Yamauchi2 discloses activating at least one surface monolayer (surface layer, Yamauchi2 [0069]) of one of the two pieces of semiconductor materials by irradiating neutral beam onto the surface(s) being activated while controlling activation parameters of the neutral beam to provide kinetic energy to the pieces sufficient to create an activated region of controlled thickness beneath the surface(s) being activated (Yamauchi2 [0069]).
Like Yamauchi, Yamauchi2 discloses bonding microelectronic materials without intervening layers. Yamauchi2 teaches activating the surface to be bonded with particles of a predetermined energy to remove surface material and expose a new surface to be bonded for the advantage of higher surface energy (Yamauchi2 [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate the surface to be bonded with particles of a predetermined energy to remove surface material and expose a new surface to be bonded for the advantage of higher surface energy.
The combination of Yamauchi and Yamauchi2 fails to disclose the activated region extends in the predetermined thickness of the piece(s) of semiconductor materials whose surface is being activated between a depth of 0.1 nm to 1 nm.
However, Economou discloses the activated region extends in the predetermined thickness of the piece(s) of semiconductor materials whose surface is being activated between a depth of 0.1 nm to 1 nm (interpreted as monolayer accuracy, Economou, page 317, col. 1, lines 21-24).
Economou describes modeling a neutral beam process similar to that disclosed by Yamauchi. Economou teaches a nearly monoenergetic beam for the benefit of monolayer accuracy in neutral beam etching (Economou, page 317, col. 1, line to col. 2, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the neutral beam to be at least nearly monoenergetic to achieve the benefit of monolayer etching in the range of 0.1 to 1 nm.
The combination of Yamauchi and Yamauchi2 also fails to disclose the kinetic energy provided by the neutral beam is at a level of 10 eV to 200 eV.
However, Economou discloses the kinetic energy provided by the neutral beam is at a level of 10 eV to 200 eV (“10 to some 100 eV”, Economou page 309, col. 1, lines 9-12).
Economou describes modeling a neutral beam process similar to that disclosed by Yamauchi. Economou teaches that neutral beams in the range of 10 to a few hundred eV can mitigate charging damage seen in conventional plasma processing (Economou page 318, Conclusion, lines 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the neutral beam energy to 10 to a few hundred eV to mitigate plasma charging damage.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, and Economou fails to disclose the controlling of the activation parameters comprises controlling the composition of gas at a pressure of 0.1 Pa to 1 Pa for the neutral beam to provide a desired kinetic energy.
However, Tan provides the process conditions for an activation process the includes a pressure of 1 mTorr to about 500 mTorr, which is about 0.1 Pa to 66 Pa (Tan [0032]), encompassing the claimed range.
Tan provides activation process conditions including 0.1 Pa to 66 Pa (Tan [0032]) to support monolayer adsorption of etchant on the surface to be activated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the pressure in this range to support surface activation.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the surface monolayer of each piece of semiconductor materials is activated by the neutral beam (Yamauchi [0119]).
Regarding Claim 7 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the controlling of the activation parameters comprises controlling kinetic energy by controlling plasma generation power (plasma generator, Yamauchi [0116]) and aperture bias power (voltage across electrodes and peripheral wall, Yamauchi [0116]), for the neutral beam to the surface(s) of the piece(s) of semiconductor materials (ions in plasma passing through the radiation ports to reach the substrate(s), Yamauchi [0116]).
Regarding Claim 8 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the controlling of the activation parameters comprises controlling kinetic energy by controlling the plasma generation power in a range between 500 W to 1500 W (0.1 to 500 W, Yamauchi2 [0077] and 100-900W, Tan [0035]).
Like Yamauchi, Yamauchi2 discloses bonding microelectronic materials without intervening layers, after activating the surface with a neutral beam. Yamauchi2 teaches setting the power supplied to a fast atom beam source to between 0.1 and 500 W to give enough energy to remove oxide and contaminants from a substrate surface (Yamauchi2 [0077]).
Tan also discloses an activation method using a noble gas such as argon to activate substrate surface. Tan teaches a plasma power level of 100-900 W (Tan [0035]) to have sufficient energy to sputter unwanted residue and remove M atoms or molecules (Tan [0038]).
These ranges overlap the claimed range and present a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider supplying between 500 W and 1500 W to the neutral beam source as part of routine optimization to obtain the benefit of removing oxide and contaminants from a substrate surface. Setting the power level presents a prima facie case of obviousness by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 11 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the gas is at least one selected from a group consisting of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and rare gas (Argon, Yamauchi [0116]).
Regarding Claim 12 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the rare gas comprises argon, xenon, or krypton (Argon, Yamauchi [0116]).
Regarding Claim 13 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the controlling of the activation parameters comprises controlling the composition of gas passing an aperture plate to generate neutral beam (aperture plate = radiation ports, Yamauchi [0116]).
Regarding Claim 14 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the aperture plate has a high aperture aspect ratio such as 10 (1 mm diameter and 10 mm long, Economou page 310, col. 1, lines 23-24).
Economou discloses a neutral beam source similar to that used by Yamauchi. Economou teaches a high aperture aspect ratio for the benefit of increasing the probability of ions being neutralized as they pass through (Economou page 310, col. 1, lines 2-8), and gives the example of 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamauchi and Economou to set the aperture aspect ratio to 10 or more to increase the probability of ions being neutralized as they pass through.
Regarding Claim 15 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the aperture plate has apertures having a size of 1 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length (Economou page 310, col. 1, lines 23-24).
Economou discloses a neutral beam source similar to that used by Yamauchi. Economou teaches a high aperture aspect ratio for the benefit of increasing the probability of ions being neutralized as they pass through (Economou page 310, col. 1, lines 2-8), and gives the example of 1 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamauchi and Economou to set the aperture at 1 mm diameter and 10 mm long or more to increase the probability of ions being neutralized as they pass through.
Regarding Claim 17 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the controlling of the activation parameters is implemented in order to create a single activated region in a predetermined thickness of the surface region of the piece(s) of semiconductor materials whose surface is being activated (Yamauchi2 [0072]).
Yamauchi2 teaches using a plasma generator to impart a predetermined energy to neutral particles being used for activation for the benefit of disturbing only the desired thickness of material (Yamauchi2 [0072-0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamauchi and Yamauchi2 to impart a predetermined energy to neutral particles being used for activation for the benefit of disturbing only the desired thickness of material.
Regarding Claim 18 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses introducing the activated surfaces to contact to each other (Yamauchi [0120]).
Regarding Claim 19 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 18.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the activated surfaces contact to each other at a temperature of no higher than about 200°C (Yamauchi [0091]).
Regarding Claim 20 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 19.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses the temperature is from about 100°C to 200°C (Yamauchi [0091]).
Regarding Claim 21 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses conducting wet surface modification at least on the surface(s) of the two pieces of semiconductor materials before the step of activating at least one surface monolayer of one of the two pieces of semiconductor materials by irradiating neutral beam onto the surface(s) (Yamauchi [0117]).
Regarding Claim 22 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan further discloses a structure formed according to the method of claim 1 (Yamauchi Fig. 13B and [0106]).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 0240304594 A1, hereinafter “Yamauchi”), in view of Yamauchi et al (JP 2016117092 A, hereinafter “Yamauchi2”), and further in view of Economou (”Modeling and Simulation of Fast Neutral Beam Sources for Materials Processing”, Plasma Processes and Polymers, 2009, 6, 308-319, hereinafter “Economou”), and further in view of Tan et al (US 20220254649 A1, hereinafter “Tan”), and further in view of Zhou et al (”Tuning the interlayer microstructure and residual stress of buffer-free direct bonding GaN/Si heterostructures”, Applied Physics Letters, 20 February 2023, hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding Claim 3 – Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan fails to disclose the two pieces of semiconductor materials are made of different semiconductor materials.
However, Zhou discloses the two pieces of semiconductor materials are made of different semiconductor materials (GaN on Si, Zhou, page 122, 082103-4, col. 2, lines 9-10).
Zhou discloses using a neutral atom beam in a wafer bonding method analogous to Yamauchi. Zhou teaches molecular bonding of substrates made of different semiconductor materials by disclosing GaN on silicon for the advantages of low cost and broad functionality (Zhou, page 122, 082103-1, col. 2, lines 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply molecular bonding to substrates of different semiconductor materials for the well-known advantages of reduced cost and broader functionality.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US 0240304594 A1, hereinafter “Yamauchi”), in view of Yamauchi et al (JP 2016117092 A, hereinafter “Yamauchi2”), and further in view of Economou (”Modeling and Simulation of Fast Neutral Beam Sources for Materials Processing”, Plasma Processes and Polymers, 2009, 6, 308-319, hereinafter “Economou”), and further in view of Tan et al (US 20220254649 A1, hereinafter “Tan”), and further in view of MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 9 - Yamauchi modified by Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
The combination of Yamauchi, Yamauchi2, Economou, and Tan fails to explicitly disclose the controlling of the activation parameters comprises controlling kinetic energy by controlling the aperture bias power in a range between 0 W to 30 W.
However, Yamauchi mentions a power source to apply a bias between electrodes and the peripheral wall of the neutral beam generator to neutralize the ions passing through the radiation ports ([0116]). The neutralized particles are then radiated onto the surfaces of the substrates to be bonded ([0116]). Tuning the kinetic energy of the emitted particles in the activation process is dependent on setting the bias power level, and is therefore routine optimization, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider setting the bias power in the range of 0-30 W. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Zhou requires a disordered amorphous-like interlayer with a thickness of tens of nanometers that provides a cushion to relax residual stress caused by lattice mismatch. However, this teaching is in the context of annealing. As explained above, Economou teaches an activation depth of 0.1-1mm. Zhou does not teach away from the combination of shallower activation with bonding different semiconductor materials.
The applicant argues that Yamauchi’s activation inherently requires energy in the keV range. However, Yamauchi2 describes the use of energies all the way down to 1 eV (Yamauchi2 [0072]), which encompasses the claimed range similarly to Economou as stated above.
The applicant argues the range of 0-30 W for bias power is not a matter of routine optimization, and that Yamauchi would be motivated to operate at higher bias power levels, but provides no evidence. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 716.01(c).
The applicant further asserts using the pressure range of Tan, which approximate the claimed range, applied to Yamauchi would lead to contamination and bonding failure, and is incompatible. Again, no evidence is provided.
In response to applicant's argument that Economou is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Economou provides teachings of the claimed neutral beam with nearly identical energy range, effective depth, and aperture size to effect surface modification, as referenced above. Therefore, it seems clear Economou is not only analogous, but is directly in the same field as the instant application and relies on at least some of the same conditions and configuration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571) 272-5944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-6p Eastern, alternating Fridays out of office.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/JASON MCDONALD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights