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. DETAILED ACTION Election/ Restrictions Applicant's election without traverse: claims 3- 20 , in the “ Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 01/05/2026 ”, withdrawal of non-elected claim(s) 1 -2 is/are acknowledged. This office action considers claims 3-20 , in “Claims - 01/05/2026 ”, pending for prosecution, of which claim(s) 1-2 is/are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action: (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (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; Notes : when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as ( 30A ; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A ; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mandal (US 6559070 B1 – hereinafter Mandal). Regarding Claim 1 7 , Mandal teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device ( see the entire document; Fig s. 15A-15H ; specifically, as cited below ), comprising: forming a first structure, wherein forming the first structure comprises: forming a metal layer (1506 – C31L26 – Fig. 15A) over a substrate (not shown) ; forming a barrier film (1508 – C31L28) over the metal layer, the barrier film having a dielectric constant of less than or about 5 (Mandal teaches wherein 1508 could be made of silicon oxide, which has a dielectric constant of 3.9 ) ; forming a tetraethyl orthosilicate layer (1510) over the barrier film (1508) ; forming a dielectric film (1516) over the tetraethyl orthosilicate layer, the dielectric film having a second dielectric constant greater than 7 ( 1516 is made of silicon carbide, which has a dielectric constant greater than 9 ) ; etching a trench in the dielectric film, the tetraethyl orthosilicate layer, and the barrier film, wherein the trench extends from a top surface of the dielectric film down to at least a top surface of the metal layer (Fig. 15F) ; forming a liner (1522) in the trench; and filling the trench with a copper-containing material (1524) . 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. Notes : when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as ( 30A ; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A ; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document. Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe et al. (US 20160190103 A1 - hereinafter Kabe ) . Regarding Claim 7, Kabe teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device ( see the entire document; Fig s . 4A-4F ; specifically, [00 93 ] -[ 0 102 ], and as cited below ), comprising: forming a first structure ( {201} – Fig. 4 A – [0091] ), wherein forming the first structure comprises: forming a metal ( 212 – Fig. 4A – [0098] ) layer over a substrate ( 211 ); forming a dielectric layer ( 231 inside of 213 – [0093] ) over the metal layer (212) ; etching a trench (251 – [0099] – Fig. 4 B ) in the dielectric film, and filling the trench with a copper-containing material (234 – also see [0102] for it being copper-containing) . But in the embodiments of Figs. 4A-4 B , Kabe does not expressly disclose forming a dielectric film over the dielectric layer (231) , the dielectric film having a dielectric constant greater than about 7 and wherein the trench extends from a top surface of the dielectric film down to at least a top surface of the metal layer. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 4C, Kabe teaches a dielectric film (253 – [0100] which is formed of SiN whose dielectric constant is known to be more than 7 and Fig. 4D shows the trench extends from the top of layer 253 down to the top surface of 212). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming a dielectric film over the dielectric layer, the dielectric film having a dielectric constant greater than about 7 as taught by Kabe in a different embodiment . An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate the forming a dielectric film over the dielectric layer, the dielectric film having a dielectric constant greater than about 7 in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of reduced leakage current and improved device performance due to high dielectric constant insulator as is well known . Regarding Claim 3, Kabe teaches t he method of claim 7 , wherein the dielectric constant is greater than about 8 ([0100]) . Regarding claim 4 , Kobe teaches claim 7 from which claim 4 depends. But Kobe does not expressly disclose wherein the dielectric film has a thickness of 5 nm. The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative thickness i.e., “ wherein the dielectric film has a thickness of 5 nm ” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having the dielectric film has a thickness of 5 nm , solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl , 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A. Regarding claim 5 , Kobe teaches claim 7 from which claim 5 depends. But Kobe does not expressly disclose wherein the dielectric film is Al 2 O 3 . The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative composition i.e., “ wherein the dielectric film is Al2O3 ” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the dielectric film is Al2O3 , solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl , 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A. Regarding claim 6 , Kobe teaches claim 7 from which claim 6 depends. But Kobe does not expressly wherein the copper-containing material is characterized by a dish profile having a dish depth of less than or about 1 nm . The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative depth i.e., “ wherein the copper-containing material is characterized by a dish profile having a dish depth of less than or about 1 nm ” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the copper-containing material is characterized by a dish profile having a dish depth of less than or about 1 nm , solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl , 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A. Claims 7- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe in view of Wang et al. (US 20170358584 A1 – hereinafter Wang). Regarding claim 8, Kabe teaches claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. But Kabe does not expressly disclose wherein etching the trench in the dielectric film and dielectric layer comprises etching the trench in the dielectric film with a chlorine-based etch. However, it is well known in the art to have a chlorine-based etch when performing etching of insulating layers as is also taught by Wang (Wang – [0032] – “ The etch process includes a wet etching by using a solution such as NH.sub.4OH, dilute HF, and/or other suitable etchant, or a dry etching by using a gas such as fluorine-based and/or chlorine-based etchants ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a chlorine-based etch when performing etching of insulating layers as is also taught by Wang as taught by Kabe . An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate a chlorine-based etch when performing etching of insulating layers in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of performing etching of dielectrics as is well known . Regarding claim 9 , the combination of Kabe and Wang teaches t he method of claim 7, wherein etching the trench in the dielectric film and dielectric layer comprises etching the trench in the dielectric film and dielectric layer with a multi-material etch, wherein the multi-material etch comprises two or more of: a chlorine- based etch, a fluorine-based etch, an oxygen-plasma etch, and a fluorine-and-oxygen-based etch (Wang – [0032]) . Regarding claims 10-16, the combination of Kabe and Wang does not expressly disclose the limitations of these claims . However, the examiner takes an official notice (per MPEP 2144.03) that the limitations in these claims are well known manufacturing processes in the modern fabrication of integrated circuits . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of what is well known into the combination of Kabe and Wang to come up with the claimed limitations for the obvious reason of taking advantage of well-known processes to fabricate integrated circuits. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 18-20 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 the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance : The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious : Regarding claim 18 : The method of claim 17, further comprising: contacting the first structure with a hydrogen-containing precursor; contacting the first structure with a second structure, the second structure comprising: a second metal layer overlaying a second substrate; a second barrier film over the second metal layer, the second barrier film having a third dielectric constant of less than or about 5, the second barrier film defining a second set of one or more features; a second tetraethyl orthosilicate layer over the second barrier film further defining the second set of one or more features; a second dielectric film overlaying the second tetraethyl orthosilicate layer, the second dielectric film having a fourth dielectric constant greater than about 7, the second dielectric film further defining the second set of one or more features; and a second copper-containing material deposited within the second set of one or more features; and bonding the first structure to the second structure, wherein the dielectric film of the first structure is hybrid bonded to the second dielectric film of the second structure, wherein the copper-containing material of the first structure contacts the second copper-containing material of the second structure. Claims 19-20 depend from claim 18. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898