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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 1/2/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the third side of second dielectric" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the third thin layer in combination with the fourth thin layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the third thin layer " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the fourth thin layer " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The examiner will treat claims 10-13 as depending on claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu (US 2015/0054160).
Regarding claim 1, Liu disclose a wafer(50) [0027] including a dielectric (44 and 54), the dielectric having a first side (upper side) and a second side (lower side) opposite the first side; at least one opening (46 and 48 are in the “opening”) etched (The limitation “etched” is a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 I discloses “’[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same … the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” Therefore the “etched” limitation does not distinguish the invention from the prior art.) into the first side of the dielectric; a plug seed layer (46) disposed on the first side of the dielectric; a plug (48) disposed inside the at least one opening; a first thin layer (62) disposed over the plug; and a second thin layer (74)(fig. 12) deposited over the first thin layer, wherein the first thin layer, the second thin layer, or both the first thin layer and the second thin layer are deposited using electroless deposition. (The limitation “wherein the first thin layer, the second thin layer, or both the first thin layer and the second thin layer are deposited using electroless deposition” is a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 I discloses “’[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same … the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” Therefore the “wherein the first thin layer, the second thin layer, or both the first thin layer and the second thin layer are deposited using electroless deposition” does not distinguish the invention from the prior art. )
Regarding claim 3, Liu disclose a height of the plug (48) corresponds to a depth of the opening such that an outer surface of the plug is flush with an outer surface of the dielectric (44) (fig. 16).
Claim(s) 1, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cohen (US 2006/0249849).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen disclose a wafer [0041, 0043] including a dielectric (11)[0011], the dielectric having a first side (upper side) and a second side (lower side) opposite the first side; at least one opening [0011] etched (The limitation “etched” is a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 I discloses “’[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same … the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” Therefore the “etched” limitation does not distinguish the invention from the prior art.) into the first side of the dielectric; a plug seed layer [0011] disposed on the first side of the dielectric; a plug (18)(fig. 1a) disposed inside the at least one opening; a first thin layer (upper portion of 12) disposed over the plug; and a second thin layer (bottom portion of 12 )(fig. 1a) deposited over the first thin layer, wherein the first thin layer, the second thin layer, or both the first thin layer and the second thin layer are deposited using electroless deposition. (The limitation “wherein the first thin layer, the second thin layer, or both the first thin layer and the second thin layer are deposited using electroless deposition” is a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 I discloses “’[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same … the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” Therefore the “wherein the first thin layer, the second thin layer, or both the first thin layer and the second thin layer are deposited using electroless deposition” limitation does not distinguish the invention from the prior art. )
Regarding claim 4, Cohen disclose a height of the plug (18) is less than a depth of the opening such that the plug is recessed below an outer surface of the dielectric (11) (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen disclose a thickness of the first thin layer (upper portion of 12) in combination with the second thin layer (lower portion of 12) is about 2-7 nm [0023, layer 12 is 30 angstroms which is equivalent to 3nm].
Regarding claim 6, Cohen disclose the first thin layer (upper portion of 12) is selected from silver [0032]. (The examiner notes that claim 1 is a “comprising” claim and understands that claim 6 would also be a “comprising” claim. MPEP 2111.03 I disclose “The transitional term ‘comprising’, … is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) “.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0314979).
Liu disclose the invention supra.
Liu fails to disclose a height of the plug exceeds a depth of the opening such that the plug extends above an outer surface of the dielectric.
Lin et al. disclose a height of the plug(228) exceeds a depth of the opening such that the plug extends above an outer surface of the dielectric(204) (fig. 7).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (depositing the plug above the insulation layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the plug above the insulation layer would conduct electricity).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0314979).
Liu disclose the invention supra.
Liu fails to disclose the first thin layer (62) is selected from nickel.
Lin et al. disclose a thin layer is selected from nickel (208) [0018].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a metal conductive layer as noted by Liu “consist of one or more of various metals”[0034]), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the nickel would conduct electricity).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Pan. (US 2005/0048772).
Liu disclose the invention supra.
Liu fails to disclose the second thin layer (74) is selected from gold.
Pan disclose a thin layer is selected from gold (pad) [0005].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a metal conductive layer as noted by Liu “consist essentially of, or consist of one or more of various metals”[0042]), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the gold would conduct electricity).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0030169), Lin et al. (US 2016/0314979) and Pan. (US 2005/0048772).
Liu disclose the invention supra.
Liu fails to disclose the wafer-to-wafer assembly is configured to form a bond at a temperature of about 100-150°C.
Kim et al. disclose a wafer (12)[0023] to wafer (32)[0030] bond assembly (fig.1).
Lin et al. disclose a thin layer is selected from nickel (208) [0018].
Pan disclose a thin layer is selected from gold (pad) [0005].
The examiner submits that since the combination of Liu, Xie Lin et al. Pan in combination would teach the structure wafer to wafer bond assembly with the first thin layer (62) is nickel the second thin layer (74) is gold. Moreover, the combination would be configured to form a bond at a temperature of about 100-150°C, because it is made of the same materials claimed and disclosed.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a metal conductive layer as noted by Liu “consist essentially of, or consist of one or more of various metals ”[0034] and“consist essentially of, or consist of one or more of various metals ”[0042] and wafer to wafer bonding), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the specific metals would conduct electricity and wafer-to-wafer bonding would result in high density stacking of the chips [Kim, 0003]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) in view of Pan. (US 2005/0048772) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0030169).
Liu and Pan fail to disclose the wafer is a first wafer, the assembly further comprising a second wafer, wherein the second wafer comprises: a second dielectric having a third side, and a fourth side opposite the third side; a second at least one opening etched into the third side of the second dielectric; a second plug seed layer disposed on the third side of the second dielectric; a second plug disposed in the second at least one opening; a third thin layer deposited over the second plug; and a fourth thin layer deposited over the third thin layer, wherein the bond is formed between the second thin layer and the fourth thin layer.
The examiner submits one could duplicate the structure in Liu (MPEP 2144.04 VI B “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”) and flip the structure in fig. 12 of Liu upside down in order to “a second dielectric having a third side, and a fourth side opposite the third side; a second at least one opening etched (MPEP 2113 I discloses “’[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same … the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”) into the third side of the second dielectric; a second plug seed layer (46) disposed on the third side of the second dielectric; a second plug (48) disposed in the second at least one opening; a third thin layer (62) deposited over the second plug; and a fourth thin layer (74) deposited over the third thin layer (fig 12 upside down).
Moreover Kim et al. disclose the wafer is a first wafer(12)[0023], the assembly further comprising a second wafer (32)[0030] bond assembly (fig.1).
The combination Liu and Pan and Kim would result in the bond is formed between the second thin layer and the fourth thin layer.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (wafer to wafer bonding), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (wafer-to-wafer bonding would result in high density stacking of the chips [Kim, 0003]).
Regarding claim 10, the bond is a first bond, and wherein a second bond is formed between outer dielectric surfaces of the first side of the first dielectric and the third side of the second dielectric, and wherein the second bond is based on Van der Waal forces. The duplication of the structure in Liu that is turned upside down would have the same structure and therefore would inherently result in the second bond is based on Van der Waal forces. MPEP 2112.01 V discloses “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) in view of Pan. (US 2005/0048772) and Kim et al. (US 2024/0030169) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Cohen (US 2006/0249849).
Liu in view of Pan. and Kim et al. disclose the invention supra.
Liu in view of Pan. and Kim et al. fail to disclose a thickness of the third thin layer in combination with the fourth thin layer is about 2-7 nm.
Cohen disclose a thickness of the first thin layer (upper portion of 12) in combination with the second thin layer (lower portion of 12) is about 2-7 nm [0023, layer 12 is 30 angstroms which is equivalent to 3nm].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the thickness of a metal layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the metal layer would still conduct electricity).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) in view of Pan. (US 2005/0048772) and Kim et al. (US 2024/0030169) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0314979).
Liu in view of Pan. and Kim et al. disclose the invention supra.
Liu in view of Pan. and Kim et al. fail to disclose the third thin layer is selected from nickel.
Lin et al. disclose a thin layer is selected from nickel (208) [0018].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a metal conductive layer as noted by Liu “consist of one or more of various metals”[0034]), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the nickel would conduct electricity).
Claim(s) 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0054160) in view of Pan. (US 2005/0048772) and Kim et al. (US 2024/0030169) as applied to claim 9 above.
Liu in view of Pan. and Kim et al. disclose the invention supra.
Liu in view of Pan. and Kim et al. fail to disclose the fourth thin layer is selected from gold.
Pan disclose a thin layer is selected from gold (pad) [0005].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a metal conductive layer as noted by Liu “consist essentially of, or consist of one or more of various metals”[0042]), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the gold would conduct electricity).
Regarding claim 20, the polishing with CMP is a method step. MPEP 2113 I discloses “’[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same … the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” Therefore the method does not distinguish the claim over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817