DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Status of Application
In response to Office action dated 10/07/2025 (10-07-25 OA), Applicant filed remarks and amended title, specification paragraph 0050, claims 1, 12, 17 and 19 while canceling claims 16 and 18 and adding new claims 21-22 in reply dated 01/05/2026 (“01-05-26 Reply”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the title overcome the objection to specification as set forth under line item number 1 of the 10-07-25 OA.
Acknowledgement of amendments to specification, paragraph 0050 made in the 01-05-26 Reply.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant’s arguments to the prior art of Yu not teaching the limitation of “same thickness” amounts to Applicant discussing how Figures 3-4 of Yu are not drawn to scale. However, Applicant does not address that the method elements of method claim 1 are all taught by Yu including the fusion bonding. Neither does Applicant address the treatment of Figure 2 of Yu with respect to paragraph 0025.
Yu discloses the identical method steps recited in claim 1 and therefore inherently satisfies the limitation that “the silicon-containing dielectric layer has a same thickness in both steps of the depositing and the bonding,” even though that exact phrasing does not appear verbatim. The MPEP expressly authorizes reliance on the inherent disclosures of a prior art reference in a § 102 (or § 103) rejection. See MPEP § 2112 (“The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.”).
Yu performs exactly the same sequence recited in claim 1:
Forming a feature for a first package component that includes a planarization process to level its top surface (metal lines/vias 34 are formed in IMD layers 38; a CMP planarization is performed to level their top surfaces – ¶ [0019]);
Depositing a silicon-containing dielectric layer (dielectric layer 42, a silicon-oxide-based or SiOₓNᵧCz material) over and contacting the planarized feature 34, as a surface feature of the first package component (blanket deposition of layer 42 directly on the planarized interconnect structure – ¶ [0022]); and
Bonding a second package component to that deposited dielectric layer through fusion bonding (pre-bonding contact + pressing of package components 20 and 120, followed by annealing to fuse dielectric layers 42 and 142 – Figs. 3–4; ¶¶ [0004], [0012], [0029]).
No intervening process step is performed on dielectric layer 42 between its deposition (¶ [0022]) and the bonding (Figs. 3–4; ¶¶ [0004], [0012], [0029]). The only optional step after deposition is a surface treatment process 44 (Fig. 2; ¶ [0025]), which the reference itself states is performed solely to modify atomic percentages of nitrogen and/or oxygen for better bonding heterogeneity. Critically, that treatment does not alter the physical thickness of layer 42— it is a compositional/plasma or thermal modification only, with no CMP, grinding, etching, or material-addition step applied to the dielectric layer itself.
Statement of fact, because the prior art carries out the identical deposition-then-direct-fusion-bonding sequence on an already-planarized feature without any thickness-altering step on the deposited silicon-containing dielectric layer, the thickness of that layer at the moment of fusion bonding is necessarily and inevitably the same thickness that existed immediately after deposition. This “same thickness” limitation is a result that flows directly from performing the recited method steps.
The USPTO’s inherency guidelines for process/method claims and intended results are directly on point:
MPEP § 2112.02 (Process Claims): When a prior art reference performs the identical (or substantially identical) process steps, any property, characteristic, or result that necessarily flows from those steps is inherent, even if not expressly recognized by the prior art. See also MPEP § 2112 (“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”).
MPEP § 2111.04 (“Adapted to,” “Adapted for,” “Wherein,” and “Whereby” Clauses): Language reciting the intended result of a positively recited process step (here, the dielectric layer having the same thickness during deposition and bonding) is given patentable weight only if it adds a manipulative or structural difference. Where, as here, the prior art performs the exact same steps without any intervening thickness-altering process, the claimed result is inherent and the limitation is satisfied.
MPEP § 2112.01(I): “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)).
Yu’s own specification confirms that the “same thickness” limitation simply means the as-deposited silicon-containing dielectric bond film is used directly for fusion bonding without any post-deposition planarization or thinning. The reference performs that exact process, so the limitation is inherently present.
This inherency argument is fully consistent with Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO practice. Once the identical process steps are shown, the burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate that the prior-art process does not necessarily result in the same thickness (a high burden under MPEP § 2112(IV)).
The previous independent claim 1 rejection of the 10-07-25 OA is presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 12 incorporating the indicated-allowable subject matter of now canceled dependent claim 16, as set forth under line item number 4 of the 10-07-25 OA, overcome the prior art rejection of unamended claim 12 based at least in part on Yu as set forth under line item number 2 of the 10-07-25 OA.
Updated search and consideration retrieved prior art reference US 2024/0363359 A1 to Chung et al. (“Chung”) that illustrates in Figures 3-5 of a bonding method with bonding layer of increased oxygen content sections 42PT between normal oxygen content sections of 42 but does not teach of the claimed, “wherein the dielectric layer and the silicon-containing dielectric layer collectively comprise: first portions extending from an additional top surface of the silicon-containing dielectric layer into the dielectric layer, wherein the first portions have a first oxygen atomic percentage; and 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.” (bolded for emphasis) Chung does not anticipate, teach or render obvious that the first oxygen atomic percentage first portions extend from the silicon-containing dielectric layer into the dielectric layer.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 19 overcome the prior art rejections based at least in part on Yu as set forth under line item number 2 of the 10-07-25 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 19 changed the scope of claim 19 and dependent claims 20-22 thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection infra.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the silicon substrate is in physical contact with the silicon-containing dielectric layer” from claim 15 and “second semiconductor substrate physically contacts the second bond film” from claim 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Amended claim 19 is objected to because of the following minor typographical informality: “lower than the first atomic percentage” appears to end without any punctuation thereby leading directly into the next limitation of “a second package…” Addition of a semicolon is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0363359 A1 to Chung et al. (“Chung”).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
It is noted that the Chung reference has a different inventive entity than present application and was filed on 04/27/2023 that is before the filing date of present application of 05/09/2023.
Regarding independent claim 19, Chung teaches of a structure comprising:
a device die (see paragraph 0006) comprising:
a first semiconductor substrate 24 (see at least Figure 2);
a dielectric layer 38;
a conductive feature 34 in the dielectric layer 38;
a first bond film 42 over and physically contacting the dielectric layer 38 and the conductive feature 34, wherein the first bond film 42 comprises:
first portions 42PT extending from a top surface (see Figure 2) of the first bond film 42 into the first bond film 42, wherein the first portions have a first atomic percentage of an element, and wherein the element is elected from the group consisting of nitrogen, oxygen (see paragraph 0034: “These dangling bonds may react with oxygen or moisture in the air to form an oxide. As a result, the treated portions 42PT have an oxygen atomic percentage OAP42PT higher than the oxygen atomic percentage OAP42 in the untreated portions 42.”), argon, and combinations thereof; and
second portions (i.e., part of 42 that is non-treated as illustrated in Figure 2) separating the first portions 42PT from each other, wherein the second portions (i.e., part of 42 that is non-treated as illustrated in Figure 2) have a second atomic percentage of the elements, with the second atomic percentage being lower than the first atomic percentage (see paragraph 0034: “These dangling bonds may react with oxygen or moisture in the air to form an oxide. As a result, the treated portions 42PT have an oxygen atomic percentage OAP42PT higher than the oxygen atomic percentage OAP42 in the untreated portions 42.”);
a second package 120 (see Figure 4) comprising:
a second bond film 142 bonding to the first bond film 42; and
a second semiconductor substrate 124 (see explanation in paragraph 0037) over the second bond film 142.
Regarding claim 21, Chung teaches in Figure 12D wherein the first portions 42PT form a plurality of concentric rings 9see Figure 12D).
Regarding claim 22, Chung teaches wherein the element comprises oxygen (refer to claim 19 rejection supra).
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, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0344301 A1 to Yu et al. (“Yu”).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Yu teaches a method (see title: “BONDING”) comprising:
forming feature 34/36 (“metal lines”/ ”vias”; Figure 1; paragraph 0018) for a first package component 20 (“package component”; Figure 1; paragraph 0013), wherein the forming the feature 34/36 comprises a planarization process (see paragraph 0019, “A planarization process such as a CMP process is then performed to remove the excess portions of the conductive material higher than the top surface of the dielectric layer”) to level a top surface of the feature 34/36;
depositing a silicon-containing dielectric layer 42 (“dielectric layer”; Figure 1; paragraph 0022; almost all material options for 42 contain silicon) over and contacting the feature 34/36, and as a surface feature (i.e., very-top) of the first package component 20; and
bonding (see Figure 3 to Figure 4 and paragraph 0029) a second package component 120 (“package component”; Figure 3; paragraph 0023) to the silicon-containing dielectric layer 42 through a fusion bonding (see paragraphs 0004 and 0012), wherein the silicon-containing dielectric layer 42 has a same thickness in both steps of the depositing and the bonding (see Figure 3 to Figure 4: thickness of 42 remains the same. Further, treatment in Figure 2, paragraph 0025 does not appear to change the thickness).
Regarding claim 4, Yu teaches wherein the same thickness of the silicon-containing dielectric layer 42 is smaller than about 100 Å (see paragraph 0053: the thickness of the first dielectric layer 42 plus second layer 142 may be less than 100 angstroms therefore 42 is less than 100 angstroms).
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches wherein the same thickness of the silicon-containing dielectric layer is smaller than about 50 Å (see paragraph 0053: the thickness of the first dielectric layer 42 plus second layer 142 may be less than 60 angstroms therefore 42 is less than 50 angstroms because Figure 3 shows 142 and 42 as essentially the same thickness1).
Regarding claim 11, Yu teaches wherein the forming the feature 34/36 comprises: depositing a conductive material 34 into openings (i.e., damascene as per paragraph 0019) in an additional dielectric layer 38 (i.e., top dielectric layer in Figure 1); and performing the planarization process (see paragraph 0019: there is planarization) to level a first top surface of the conductive material 34 with a second top surface of the additional dielectric layer (i.e., top dielectric layer).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0344301 A1 to Yu et al. (“Yu”).
Yu teaches all limitations from independent claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Regarding claim 2, Yu makes obvious wherein the silicon-containing dielectric layer is deposited using a Plasma Enhanced Atomic Layer Deposition (PEALD) process (as stated supra for claims 4-5 rejections there are angstroms of thickness. Also plasma deposition is taught for certain layer in paragraph 0016: therefore with respect to the deposition of 42 PEALD is made obvious when considered Yu as a whole).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that layer 42 of Yu may be made by PEALD because the thickness of Yu’s layers are in a few angstroms of magnitude.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-10 and 20 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.
Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest part of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 3, wherein the PEALD process has a flow rate ratio of (N2O+N2)/(N2O+N2+O2) higher than about 0.2.
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest part of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 6, wherein the silicon-containing dielectric layer has roughness values smaller than about 1 Å.
Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest part of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 7, further comprising selectively treating first portions of the silicon-containing dielectric layer, and leaving second portions of the silicon-containing dielectric layer untreated.
It is noted that a treatment 44 in Figure 2 is taught by Yu but the entire surface is treated.
Claims 8-10 contain allowable subject matter, because they depend on the allowable subject matter of claim 7.
Claim 20 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 20, wherein the second semiconductor substrate physically contacts the second bond film.
Independent claim 12 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 12, wherein the dielectric layer and the silicon-containing dielectric layer collectively comprise: first portions extending from an additional top surface of the silicon-containing dielectric layer into the dielectric layer, wherein the first portions have a first oxygen atomic percentage; and 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.
Updated search and consideration retrieved prior art reference US 2024/0363359 A1 to Chung et al. (“Chung”) that illustrates in Figures 3-5 of a bonding method with bonding layer of increased oxygen content sections 42PT between normal oxygen content sections of 42. Chung does not anticipate, teach or render obvious that the first oxygen atomic percentage first portions extend from the silicon-containing dielectric layer into the dielectric layer.
Dependent claims 13-15 and 17 contain allowable subject matter, because they depend on the allowable subject matter of claim 12.
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 JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
28 April 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) (Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed). See MPEP 2125.
Prosecution Insights