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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first metal is gold, silver, platinum, ruthenium, aluminum or any combination thereof; the second metal is copper, palladium or a combination thereof; wherein a material of the bonding substrate comprises a third metal which is gold, aluminum, copper, cobalt, ruthenium or any combination thereof” in lines 5-9.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein a material of the first bonding substrate and a material of the second bonding substrate independently comprise the third metal which is gold, aluminum, copper, cobalt, ruthenium or any combination thereof” in lines 6-8.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein a material of the first bonding substrate and a material of the second bonding substrate independently comprise a third metal which is gold, aluminum, copper, cobalt, ruthenium or any combination thereof” in lines 3-5.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the first metal is gold, silver, platinum, ruthenium, aluminum or any combination thereof” in lines 5-7.
Claims 1, 1, 8, 13 and 15 are contain improper form of Markush groping of claims. See Ex parte Dotter, 12 USPQ 382 (Bd. App. 1931). Also See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
“A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than “comprising” or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281.” See also MPEP § 2111.03. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GONDCHARTON et al. (US 2018/0218999).
Re Claim 15, GONDCHARTON et al. disclose a sputtering target (see Paragraph [0035]) used to make a passivation layer for forming a bonding layer (i.e., first bonding layer 5 and second boding layer 6, Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0052]) , comprising a first metal, a second metal or a combination thereof (i.e., third metal M co-sputtered on surface of 3 and 4 tungsten layer, Paragraphs [0052] and [0053]) ; with predetermined an oxygen content in the sputtering target (i.e., during sputtering to deposit layer 5 and layer 6 in oxygen presence, Paragraph [0057])) wherein the first metal is gold, silver, platinum, ruthenium, aluminum or any combination thereof (i.e., at least one of Pt, Ag, Ru, Au or combination thereof , Paragraph [0063]); the second metal is copper, palladium or a combination thereof (i.e., at lease one of Cu, Pd or combination thereof, Paragraph [0063]). See Fig. 5 and related text in Paragraphs [0052] – [0063].
Furthermore, the claim oxygen content 10 ppm or less can be achieved routinely by using high ultra vacuum PVD chamber in order to avoid oxidation of the metal layer thereby to achieve high bonding strength.
Therefore, it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention filed to optimized the oxygen content during sputtering, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed oxygen content or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919, f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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.
Claims 1-14 are allowed over prior art record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “wherein based on a total atom number of a surface of the passivation layer, an oxygen content of the surface of the passivation layer is less than 30 at%, and a content of the third metal of the surface of the passivation layer is less than or equal to 10 at%,” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 and 13 are also allowed as being directly linking to the allowed base claim 1.
Claims 2-7 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claim 1.
Claims 9-12 are also allowed as being directly dependent of the allowed claim 8.
Claim 14 is also allowed as being directly dependent of the allowed claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure CHEN et al. (US 2020/0006275) and CHEN et al. (US 2021/0335745) also disclose similar inventive subject matter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights