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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period after 250°C
“…compressing a first copper structure with a second copper structure under a stress from 0.1 MPa to 50 MPa and under a temperature from 100°C. to 250°C. so that a bonding surface…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim recites “without regard to the crystal orientation of the surfaces”. However, there is no support in the specification for this feature. The recited limitation appears to be broadened aspect of what is disclosed originally and raises the issues regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention (See MPEP § 2163.05.I.A). Therefore the claim omits an element which applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed and as such does not comply with the written description requirement. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For purposes of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner assumes any feature as necessarily being appropriate.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because they inherit the above issue from their parent claim 1.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim recites “without regard to the crystal orientation of the surfaces”. However, there is no support in the specification for this feature. The recited limitation appears to be broadened aspect of what is disclosed originally and raises the issues regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention (See MPEP § 2163.05.I.A). Therefore the claim omits an element which applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed and as such does not comply with the written description requirement. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For purposes of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner assumes any feature as necessarily being appropriate.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because they inherit the above issue from their parent claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Chien-Min, et al. “Low-Temperature Direct Copper-to-Copper Bonding Enabled by Creep on (111) Surfaces of Nanotwinned Cu.” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, no. 1, 9734, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09734 in view of Ezura et al. WO2014/119355.
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. disclose a method of directly bonding two copper structures, comprising:
compressing a first copper structure with a second copper structure under a stress from 0.1 MPa to 50 MPa (0.69 MPa) and under a temperature from 100°C to 250°C (150°C to 250°C) so that a bonding surface of the first copper structure is bonded to a bonding surface of the second copper structure.
Liu et al. disclose at least one of the bonding surface of the first copper structure and the bonding surface of the second copper structure have a layer of nanograins.
Liu et al. do not expressly disclose the nanograins consisting of copper having an average grain size of 5 nm to 500 nm, and chemical additives of copper electrodeposition electrolyte, the layer of the nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 m.
Ezura et al. teach a method of forming an electrolytic copper foil including copper crystal grains (3) with an average grain size between 100-600 nm and inclusions (5) containing an organic compound and / or an inorganic compound, and exist as fine particles in the copper foil without making an alloy with copper of the base material. The average particle diameter of inclusions (5) is 0.5 to 100 nm. Ezura et al. further teach that dispersing nano-inclusions containing an organic compound or an inorganic compound in a copper foil and setting the particle size of the nano-inclusions within a predetermined range, an electrolytic copper alloy foil having a high mechanical strength can be obtained.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ezura et al. in the method of Liu et al. for the purpose of increasing the mechanical strength of the copper structures.
Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. do not expressly teach the layer of nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 µm. Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness of the layer of nanograins for copper of 10 nm to 10 µm, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Ezura et al. teach that the mechanical strength of the copper is increased by the electroplated copper which includes the layer of nanograins. This demonstrates that to achieve increased mechanical strength of the copper structure, the properties of the layer of nanograins (e.g. thickness) would be considered a result effective variable.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious adjust the thickness of the nanograins in order “improve the mechanical strength of the copper structure” thereof and optimize “the layer of nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 µm” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein both of the bonding surface of the first copper structure and the bonding surface of the second copper structure have a layer of nanograins of copper having an average grain size of 5 nm to 500 nm, the layer of the nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 m.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 10 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 10 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 10 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 15 nm to 100 nm.
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Liu et al. teach wherein the first copper structure and the second copper structure are compressed under a temperature from 120° C. to 200° C.
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Liu et al. teach wherein the first copper structure and the second copper structure are compressed for a time from 0.5 to 60 minutes.
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Liu et al. further teach with the proviso that a CMP process associated with the method of bonding two copper structures is not conducted (i.e. Liu et al. does not disclose a CMP process).
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. US 2021/0384923 in view of Liu, Chien-Min, et al. “Low-Temperature Direct Copper-to-Copper Bonding Enabled by Creep on (111) Surfaces of Nanotwinned Cu.” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, no. 1, 9734, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09734, further in view of Ezura et al. WO2014/119355.
Regarding claim 11, Singh et al. in [0003] teach a 5G chipset. Singh et al. also teach in [0044] and Fig. 7 an electronic device 700 that includes a band-switching network. Electronic device 700 includes a memory configured to store a command code to be used by a controller 710.
Singh et al. do not expressly teach a method of directly bonding two copper structures within a 5G chipset, comprising:
compressing a first copper structure within a wireless chipset with a second copper structure within a wireless chipset under a stress from 0.1 MPa to 50 MPa and under a temperature from 1000 C. to 250° C. so that a bonding surface of the first copper structure is bonded to a bonding surface of the second copper structure;
at least one of the bonding surface of the first copper structure and the bonding surface of the second copper structure have a layer of nanograins consisting of copper having an average grain size of 5 nm to 500 nm, and chemical additives of copper electrodeposition electrolyte, the layer of the nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 m.
Liu et al. teach a method of directly bonding two copper structures, as potential replacement of solder joint in high-end packaging, including the packaging of mainframe computers, comprising:
compressing a first copper structure with a second copper structure under a stress from 0.1 MPa to 50 MPa (0.69 MPa) and under a temperature from 100°C. to 250°C. (150°C to 250°C) so that a bonding surface of the first copper structure is bonded to a bonding surface of the second copper structure.
Liu et al. teach at least one of the bonding surface of the first copper structure and the bonding surface of the second copper structure have a layer of nanograins.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu et al. in the teachings of Singh et al. for the purpose of increasing the mechanical strength and reliability of the bonding.
Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. does not expressly disclose the nanograins consisting of copper having an average grain size of 5 nm to 500 nm, and chemical additives of copper electrodeposition electrolyte, the layer of the nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 m.
Ezura et al. teach a method of forming an electrolytic copper foil including copper crystal grains (3) with an average grain size between 100-600 nm and inclusions (5) containing an organic compound and / or an inorganic compound, and exist as fine particles in the copper foil without making an alloy with copper of the base material. The average particle diameter of inclusions (5) is 0.5 to 100 nm. Ezura et al. further teach that dispersing nano-inclusions containing an organic compound or an inorganic compound in a copper foil and setting the particle size of the nano-inclusions within a predetermined range, an electrolytic copper alloy foil having a high mechanical strength can be obtained.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ezura et al. in the teachings of Singh et al. and Liu et al. for the purpose of increasing the mechanical strength of the copper structures.
The combined references do not expressly teach the layer of nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 µm. Applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness of the layer of nanograins for copper of 10 nm to 10 µm, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Ezura et al. teaches that the mechanical strength of the copper is increased by the electroplated copper thus the layer of nanograins. This demonstrates that to achieve increased mechanical strength of the copper structure, the properties of the layer of nanograins (e.g. thickness) would be considered a result effective variable.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious adjust the thickness of the nanograins in order “improve the mechanical strength of the copper structure” thereof and optimize “the layer of nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 µm” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 11, wherein both the bonding surface of the first copper structure and the bonding surface of the second copper structure have a layer of nanograins of copper having an average grain size of 5 nm to 500 nm, the layer of the nanograins of copper having a thickness of 10 nm to 10 m.
Regarding claim 13, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 11, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 10 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding claim 14, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 10 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding claim 15, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 11, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 10 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding claim 16, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the nanograins of copper have an average grain size of 15 nm to 100 nm.
Regarding claim 18, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 11. Liu et al. teach wherein the first copper structure and the second copper structure are compressed under a temperature from 120° C. to 200° C.
Regarding claim 19, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 11. Liu et al. teach wherein the first copper structure and the second copper structure are compressed for a time from 0.5 to 60 minutes.
Regarding claim 20, Singh et al. in view of Liu et al. and further in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 11. Liu et al. further teach with the proviso that a CMP process associated with the method of bonding two copper structures is not conducted (i.e. Liu et al. does not disclose a CMP process).
Regarding claim 21, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the layer of nanograins of copper has a thickness of 25 nm to 5 µm.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 22, Liu et al. in view of Ezura et al. teach the method according to claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the layer of nanograins of copper have a thickness of 50nm to 1 µm.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious in the context of the claims,
wherein the first copper structure and the second copper structure are compressed under a stress from 1 MPa to 20 MPa.
Although various prior art references disclose several individual limitations in the claims, these references, and their combinations, neither anticipate nor render obvious the above identified limitation(s), as structured and interrelated in the context of the claims.
For example, Liu et al. teach compressing a first and second copper structure under a stress of 0.69 MPa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 J. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898