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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 3/9/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 9 and 11-15 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 9 states the angle between the first upper surface and the first sidewall is in a range of “30° to 70° or less”. As-written, it is unclear if the modifier “or less” applies to the upper limit of the range of 70° or applies to the entire range 30° to 70° (i.e., the range is less than 30° to 70°). Alternatively, based upon amendments to the other claims, the “or less” could have been inadvertently not deleted (see amended claim 1). For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (that “or less” was intended to be deleted). However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested. Claims 11-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 9.
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, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enquist (U.S. 2019/0237419 A1) in view of Ishikawa et al. (U.S. 2022/0336394 A1; “Ishikawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Enquist discloses a first element (32, Fig. 5) configured to directly bond to a second element (30, Fig. 5), the first element (32, Fig. 5) comprising:
A nonconductive field region (3, Fig. 5) having a [top] surface defining at least a portion of a bonding surface of the first element, the surface of the nonconductive field region being prepared for direct bonding to the second element (30, Fig. 5); and
A conductive feature (1, 2, 7, Fig. 5) having an upper surface defining at least a portion of the bonding surface of the first element, a lower surface opposite the upper surface, and a sidewall extending between the upper surface and the lower surface ([0026], [0035]).
Yet, Enquist does not disclose an angle between the upper surface and the sidewall [of the conductive feature] is in a range of 30° to 70° such that the upper surface is wider than the lower surface. However, Ishikawa discloses a conductive feature (978, Fig. 1B) having an angle between the upper surface and the sidewall is in a range of 30° to 70° such that the upper surface is wider than the lower surface ([0176] discloses sidewalls of first pad base cavity have a taper angle between 0 and 30 degrees, which implies the angle between the upper surface and sidewall is between 90 degrees and 60 degrees). This has the advantage of increased surface area of the conductive feature which aides in a subsequent bonding step between the first element and the second element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Enquist with an angle between the upper surface and the sidewall [of the conductive feature] is in a range of 30° to 70° such that the upper surface is wider than the lower surface, as taught by Ishikawa, so as to aid in a subsequent bonding step.
Regarding claim 3, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose an angle between the upper surface and the sidewall of the conductive feature is in a range of 60° to 90° (non-inclusive) (see claim 1 rejection above; Ishikawa: [0176] discloses sidewalls of first pad base cavity have a taper angle between 0 and 30 degrees, which implies the angle between the upper surface and sidewall is between 90 degrees and 60 degrees). Enquist and Ishikawa do not specifically disclose an angle between the upper surface and the sidewall of the conductive feature is in a range of 30° to 60° (inclusive). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose the conductive feature (Enquist: 1, 2, 7, Fig. 5) is a contact pad with an implicit thickness (Enquist: [0026], [0035]) but do not disclose it is in a range of 1 µm and 2 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a conductive pad thickness within the range of 1 µm and 2 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose the conductive feature (Enquist: 1, 2, 7, Fig. 5) is a contact pad with an implicit width (Enquist: [0026], [0035]) but do not disclose it is in a range of 0.5 µm and 20 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a conductive pad width within the range of 0.5 µm and 20 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose the upper surface of the conductive feature (Enquist: 1, 2, 7, Fig. 5) is recessed relative to the surface of the nonconductive field region (Enquist: 3, Fig. 5) within the range of 2 nm and 20 nm ([0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Enquist discloses a bonded structure comprising:
A first element (32, Fig. 6) including a first nonconductive field region (3 of 32, Fig. 6) having a first [top] surface defining at least a portion of a bonding surface of the first element, and a first conductive feature (1, 2, 7 of 32, Fig. 6) having a first upper surface defining at least a portion of the bonding surface of the first element, a first lower surface opposite the first upper surface, and a first sidewall extending between the first upper surface and the first lower surface; and
A second element (30, Fig. 5) including a second nonconductive field region having a second surface directly bonded to the first [top] surface of the first nonconductive field region, and a second conductive feature (1, 2, 7 of 30, Fig. 6) directly bonded to the first conductive feature.
Yet, Enquist does not disclose an angle between the first upper surface and the first sidewall [of the first conductive feature] is in a range of 30° to 70° such that the first upper surface is wider than the first lower surface. However, Ishikawa discloses a conductive feature (978, Fig. 1B) having an angle between the upper surface and the sidewall is in a range of 30° to 70° such that the upper surface is wider than the lower surface ([0176] discloses sidewalls of first pad base cavity have a taper angle between 0 and 30 degrees, which implies the angle between the upper surface and sidewall is between 90 degrees and 60 degrees). This has the advantage of increased surface area of the conductive feature and strengthens the bond between the first element and the second element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Enquist with an angle between the first upper surface and the first sidewall [of the first conductive feature] is in a range of 30° to 70° such that the upper surface is wider than the lower surface, as taught by Ishikawa, so as to strengthen the bond between the first element and the second element.
Regarding claim 11, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose an angle between the upper surface and the sidewall of the first conductive feature is in a range of 60° to 90° (non-inclusive) (see claim 9 rejection above; Ishikawa: [0176] discloses sidewalls of first pad base cavity have a taper angle between 0 and 30 degrees, which implies the angle between the upper surface and sidewall is between 90 degrees and 60 degrees). Enquist and Ishikawa do not specifically disclose an angle between the first upper surface and the sidewall of the first conductive feature is in a range of 30° to 60° (inclusive). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose the first conductive feature (Enquist: 1, 2, 7 of 32, Fig. 7) is a contact pad with an implicit thickness and width (Enquist: [0026], [0035]) but do not disclose the thickness is in a range of 1 µm and 2 µm and the width is in a range of 0.5 µm and 20 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a conductive pad thickness within the range of 1 µm and 2 µm and width in a range of 0.5 µm and 20 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose the upper surface of the first conductive feature (Enquist: 1, 2, 7 of 32, Fig. 7) is recessed relative to the surface of the nonconductive field region (Enquist: 3 of 32, Fig. 7) within the range of 2 nm and 20 nm ([0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose the second conductive feature (Enquist: 1, 2, 7 of 30, Fig. 7) has a second upper surface directly bonded to the first conductive feature (Enquist: 1, 2, 7 of 32, Fig. 7), a second lower surface opposite the second upper surface of the second conductive feature, and a second sidewall extending between the second upper surface and the second lower surface of the second conductive feature. Enquist and Ishikawa disclose a conductive feature (Ishikawa: 978, Fig. 1B) having an angle less than 75° (Ishikawa: [0176] discloses sidewalls of first pad base cavity have a taper angle between 0 and 30 degrees, which implies the angle between the upper surface and sidewall is between 90 degrees and 60 degrees).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enquist (U.S. 2019/0237419 A1) as modified by Ishikawa et al. (U.S. 2022/0336394 A1; “Ishikawa”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2020/0395339 A1; "Chen").
Regarding claim 7, Enquist and Ishikawa disclose a contact pad (see claim 6 rejection) but do not disclose a back-end-of-line structure below the non-conductive field region. However, Chen discloses a back-end-of-line structure (106, Fig. 1D) below a nonconductive field region (16, Fig. 1D), the back-end-of-line structure (106, Fig. 1D) having a via electrically connected to the contact pad ([0018]). This has the advantage of electrically connecting a back-end-of-line structure with other electrical components on a second element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Enquist as modified by Ishikawa with a back-end-of-line structure below the nonconductive field region, as taught by Chen, so as to electrically connect the back-end-of-line structure with electrical components on the second element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 3/19/2026