DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are pending before the Office for review.
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 1-10) in the reply filed on May 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,869. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover overlapping subject ,atter wherein claim 28 of the instant application are rendered obvious by claims 1-2 of US Patent No. 11,869,869.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0066222) in view of YU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0301650) and FOUNTAIN et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210242152).
With regards to claim 1, Chen discloses performing a selective plasma treatment on the first portions of the first surface dielectric layer that are exposed; and bonding a second surface dielectric layer in a second package component to the first surface dielectric layer (Figure 21 Paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0057]).
Chen does not explicitly disclose forming a patterned treating mask over a first surface dielectric layer of a first package component, wherein first portions of the first surface dielectric layer are exposed through the patterned treating mask; performing a selective plasma treatment on the first portions of the first surface dielectric layer that are exposed through the patterned treating mask to form first treated portions; removing the patterned treating mask.
Fountain discloses a method of bonding structures comprising forming a mask on the surface of bond layers wherein the photoresist can be patterned to expose the surface to be treated; wherein direct bonding can be performed by exposing to surface to a plasma or etchant to activate the surface (Paragraph [0028], [0057]-[0060]). Yu discloses performing a plasma treatment to treat the surface of the dielectric (Paragraph [0023]). Chen as modified by Fountain and Yu renders obvious a method comprising: forming a patterned treating mask over a first surface dielectric layer of a first package component, wherein first portions of the first surface dielectric layer are exposed through the patterned treating mask; performing a selective plasma treatment on the first portions of the first surface dielectric layer that are exposed through the patterned treating mask to form first treated portions; removing the patterned treating mask; and bonding a second surface dielectric layer in a second package component to the first surface dielectric layer.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Chen to include the mask and treatment as rendered obvious by Fountain and Yu because the reference of Fountain teaches that such bonding allows for direct bonding without any intervening adhesive (Paragraph [0059]), the reference of Yu teaches that such treatment provide the quality of bonding necessary for production (Paragraph [0023]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired patterning using the mask and treatment as rendered obvious by Fountain and Yu. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Chen renders obvious wherein the selective plasma treatment is performed using a process gas selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N2), argon, and combinations thereof. (Chen Paragraph [0057]).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Chen renders obvious wherein the first package component comprises a wafer that comprises a plurality of dies, and wherein the first treated portions in each of the plurality of dies have a same pattern as patterns of the first treated portions in other dies among the plurality of dies (Chen Paragraphs [0010], [0030] discloses forming a plurality of devices that are singulated on the scribe line region to form adjacent device structures).
With regards to claims 4-5, the modified teachings of Chen renders obvious comprising activating the first surface dielectric layer using a forming gas comprising (N2) and hydrogen (H2) and the selective plasma treatment is performed after the activating. (Fountain Paragraphs [0057]-[0060] discloses performing a activation process to break bonds followed by a separate surface treatment to provide additional species for direct bonding).
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Chen renders obvious wherein the selective plasma treatment is performed with a bias power. (Yu Paragraph [0023]).
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Chen renders obvious wherein the first treated portions have widths in a range between about 1 to 5 µm which renders obvious about 1 µm and about 20 µm, and pitches in a range between about 1 to 5 µm which renders obvious about 1 µm and about µm (Chen Paragraph [0028]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claims 9-10, the modified teachings of Chen renders obvious performing an additional selective plasma treatment on second portions of the second surface dielectric layer to form second treated portions and wherein after the bonding, one of the first treated portions is bonded to one of the second treated portions (Chen Paragraphs [0057] discloses treating both a first and second die structure can be treated in order to form package 500 by direct bonding or hybrid bonding wherein the treated surfaces match).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 29 and 30 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.
Claims 21-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closest prior art of Chen in view Yu fails to tech or render obvious after the selective plasma treatment, performing a vacuum break to expose the first package component to air, wherein the vacuum break results in the first treated portions of the first surface dielectric layer to have an increased oxygen atomic percentage as required by claim 8. A further search of the prior art has failed to produce analogous art which teaches or renders obvious Applicant’s claimed invention..
Closest prior art of Chen in view Yu fails to tech or render obvious a method comprising: forming a first package component comprising: forming a first surface dielectric layer comprising: forming first portions extending from a surface of the first surface dielectric layer into the first surface dielectric layer, wherein the first portions have a first oxygen atomic percentage, wherein the forming the first portions comprises a treatment process using a process gas comprising oxygen; and forming second portions separating the first portions from each other, wherein the second portions have a second oxygen atomic percentage lower than the first oxygen atomic percentage. A further search of the prior art has failed to produce analogous art which teaches or renders obvious Applicant’s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-8 of Applicant’s response that the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious Applicant’s claimed invention.
On pages 5-6, Applicant argues that the Examiner fails to explain why claim 28 is obvious claims 1-2 of US Patent No 11,869,869.
Applicant argues on pages 6-8 of Applicant’s response that the cited prior at fails to teach or render obvious claim 1. Applicant argues that Fountain fails to teach any plasma treat on the first portions of the assert first surface dielectric layer let alone that the plasma treatment is performed through the patterned treatment mas (photoresist). Applicant argues that Fountain merely discloses a plasma treat for activation but fails to mention any treatment mask or selective treatment. As such Fountain fails to cure the deficiency of Chen. Thus claim 1 is allowable over Chen and Fountain.
As to the dependent claims they are allowable based on their dependency. This is found unpersuasive.
It is the Examiner’s position that the claims of US Patent No 11869869 renders obvious claim 28 of the present application. The “die device” of applicant’s currently presented claims id rendered obvious by the first and second package components; wherein the first component has a higher a higher oxygen atomic percentage than the second component rendering obvious “ forming first portions extending from a top surface of the silicon-containing dielectric layer to an intermediate level between the top surface and a bottom surface of the silicon-containing dielectric layer, wherein the first portions are in second portions, and the second portions extend from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein the first portions have a higher oxygen atomic percentage than the second portions.”
With regards to claim 1, the Examiner maintains that claim 1 is rendered obvious by the teachings of Chen in view of Fountain and Yu. In particular, the cited prior art renders obvious “… forming a patterned treating mask over a first surface dielectric layer of a first package component, wherein first portions of the first surface dielectric layer are exposed through the patterned treating mask; performing a selective plasma treatment on the first portions of the first surface dielectric layer that are exposed through the patterned treating mask to form first treated portions…” One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2144 (IV)
It is the Examiner’s position that Fountain discloses wherein the formation and/or alteration of the bonding layers and bonding pads can be done through the use of a photoresist masking layer (Paragraph [0028]) wherein some embodiments of alternating includes treating the surface in order to provide direct bonding of the dielectric layers at activated sites wherein the activation is exposure to a plasma (Paragraph [0057]-[0060]). Yu further discloses performing a plasma treatment to treat the surface of the dielectric (Paragraph [0023]). Therefore it is the Examiner’s position that while the references individually do not render obvious Applicant’s claimed invention, it is the Examiner’s position that the combined references renders obvious Applicant’s currently presented claims.
As to the dependent claims they remain rejected as no separate arguments have been provided.
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 STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713