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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, per page 7, filed August 25, 2026, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of June 8, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Park (US 2021/0057371) discloses (Fig. 15) with a first oxide 110 and second oxide 117, where 110 is not a stop layer.
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 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 2021/0057371). Claim 1, Park discloses (Fig. 15) a semiconductor device, comprising: a first wafer (100/110/117/120/130 considered wafer, hereinafter “wafer1”), comprising: a first substrate (100, first substrate, Para [0020]); a stress tuning structure (110/117/120, first insulating interlayer/first diffusion barrier layer/first adsorption layer, considered stress tuning as 120 have material to increase bonding strength, Para [0019], [0048], [0080], hereinafter “stress”) disposed on the first substrate (stress is on 100), wherein the stress tuning structure (stress) comprises a first oxide layer (110 may be TEOS, Para [0022]) and a second oxide layer (117 may be same material as 130 which may be silicon oxide, Para [0024], [0081]) sequentially disposed on the first substrate (110 and 117 are sequentially disposed on 100), the first oxide layer is not a stop layer (110 is not labeled as etch stop layer), and a first refractive index of the first oxide layer is different from a second refractive index of the second oxide layer (since 110 is TEOS and 117 is silicon oxide they would have different refractive indices); and a first bonding structure (130, first bonding layer, Para [0019]) disposed on the stress tuning structure (130 is on stress); and a second wafer (200/210/217/220/230 considered second wafer, hereinafter “wafer2”), comprising: a second substrate (200, second substrate, Para [0035]); and a second bonding structure (230, second bonding layer, Para [0035]) disposed on the second substrate (230 is on 200), wherein the second bonding structure is bonded with the first bonding structure (230 is bonded to 130). Claim 11, Park discloses (Fig. 15) a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising: providing a first wafer (100/110/117/120/130 considered wafer, hereinafter “wafer1”), wherein the first wafer comprises a first substrate (100, first substrate, Para [0020]), a stress tuning structure (110/117/120, first insulating interlayer/first diffusion barrier layer/first adsorption layer, considered stress tuning as 120 have material to increase bonding strength, Para [0019], [0048], [0080], hereinafter “stress”) disposed on the first substrate (stress is on 100) and a first bonding structure (130, first bonding layer, Para [0019]) disposed on the stress tuning structure (130 is on stress), the stress tuning structure comprises a first oxide layer (110 may be TEOS, Para [0022]) and a second oxide layer (117 may be same material as 130 which may be silicon oxide, Para [0024], [0081]) sequentially disposed on the first substrate (110 and 117 are sequentially disposed on 100), the first oxide layer is not a stop layer (110 is not labeled as etch stop layer), and a first refractive index of the first oxide layer is different from a second refractive index of the second oxide layer (since 110 is TEOS and 117 is silicon oxide they would have different refractive indices); providing a second wafer (200/210/217/220/230 considered second wafer, hereinafter “wafer2”), wherein the second wafer comprises a second substrate (200, second substrate, Para [0035]) and a second bonding structure (230, second bonding layer, Para [0035]) disposed on the second substrate (230 is on 200); and bonding the second bonding structure with the first bonding structure (230 is bonded to 130).
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) 4 -6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0057371) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hsuch (US Pat. No. 5859458).
Claim 4, Park discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the first refractive index ranges from 1.455 to 1.475. However, Hsuch discloses that the refractive index for TEOS layer has a range from 1.45 to 1.46 (Col. 4, lines: 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the TEOS layer of Park to have a refractive index in a range from 1.455 to 1.475 as it is a common refractive index range from the TEOS material as taught by Hsuch. Claim 5, Park discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference between the second refractive index and the first refractive index ranges from 0.006 to 0.02. However, Hsuch discloses the refractive index for TEO layer has a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the refractive index range for silicon oxide can be from 1.47 to 1.5 (Col. 4, lines: 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the TEOS layer of Park to have a refractive index in a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the silicon oxide layer of Park to have a refractive index range from 1.47 to 1.5 as it is a common index range from TEOS and silicon oxide material as taught by Hsuch. As a result, 110 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.46 and 117 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.47, resulting in an absolute value of a difference between the two to be 0.01. Claim 6, Park discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index. However, Hsuch discloses the refractive index for TEO layer has a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the refractive index range for silicon oxide can be from 1.47 to 1.5 (Col. 4, lines: 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the TEOS layer of Park to have a refractive index in a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the silicon oxide layer of Park to have a refractive index range from 1.47 to 1.5 as it is a common index range from TEOS and silicon oxide material as taught by Hsuch. As a result, 110 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.46 and 117 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.47, where 1.47 is greater than 1.46. Claim 14, Park discloses the method of claim 11. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the first refractive index ranges from 1.455 to 1.475. However, Hsuch discloses that the refractive index for TEOS layer has a range from 1.45 to 1.46 (Col. 4, lines: 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the TEOS layer of Park to have a refractive index in a range from 1.455 to 1.475 as it is a common refractive index range from the TEOS material as taught by Hsuch. Claim 15, Park discloses Park discloses the method of claim 11. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference between the second refractive index and the first refractive index ranges from 0.006 to 0.02. However, Hsuch discloses the refractive index for TEO layer has a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the refractive index range for silicon oxide can be from 1.47 to 1.5 (Col. 4, lines: 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the TEOS layer of Park to have a refractive index in a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the silicon oxide layer of Park to have a refractive index range from 1.47 to 1.5 as it is a common index range from TEOS and silicon oxide material as taught by Hsuch. As a result, 110 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.46 and 117 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.47, resulting in an absolute value of a difference between the two to be 0.01. Claim 16, Park discloses Park discloses the method of claim 11. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index. However, Hsuch discloses the refractive index for TEO layer has a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the refractive index range for silicon oxide can be from 1.47 to 1.5 (Col. 4, lines: 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the TEOS layer of Park to have a refractive index in a range from 1.45 to 1.46 and the silicon oxide layer of Park to have a refractive index range from 1.47 to 1.5 as it is a common index range from TEOS and silicon oxide material as taught by Hsuch. As a result, 110 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.46 and 117 of Park can be chosen to have an index of 1.47, where 1.47 is greater than 1.46.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7-10, 12-13 and 17-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record, Chen (US 2016/0197049), Wu (US 2021/0217716), Lai (US 2024/0413034), Park (US 2021/0057371), Hsuch (US Pat. No. 5859458), fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination) the following limitations in combination with the rest of the claim:
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the stress tuning structure has a thickness in a vertical direction, and the thickness ranges from 2000 angstroms to 4000 angstroms.
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the first oxide layer has a first sub-thickness in a vertical direction, the second oxide layer has a second sub-thickness in the vertical direction, and a ratio of the second sub-thickness to the first sub-thickness ranges from 0.25 to 4.
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the stress tuning structure has a thickness in a vertical direction, and the thickness ranges from 2000 angstroms to 4000 angstroms.
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the first oxide layer has a first sub-thickness in a vertical direction, the second oxide layer has a second sub-thickness in the vertical direction, and a ratio of the second sub-thickness to the first sub-thickness ranges from 0.25 to 4.
Regarding Claim 7 (from which claims 8-10 depend), wherein the stress tuning structure has a thickness in a vertical direction, the stress tuning structure further comprises a metal layer disposed in the first oxide layer and the second oxide layer, the metal layer has a third sub-thickness in the vertical direction, and the third sub-thickness is equal to the thickness of the stress tuning structure.
Regarding Claim 17 (from which claims 18-20 depend), wherein the stress tuning structure has a thickness in a vertical direction, the stress tuning structure further comprises a metal layer disposed in the first oxide layer and the second oxide layer, the metal layer has a third sub-thickness in the vertical direction, and the third sub-thickness is equal to the thickness of the stress tuning structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GUSTAVO G RAMALLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9227. 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/G.G.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights