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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response filed on July 20, 2026. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 21 have been amended. Claims 42-45 have been added. Claims 5-6 and 12-18 have been canceled. Currently claims 1-4, 7-11, 19-22 and 42-45 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 9, 11, and 21 and 2-8, 10, 12-20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered and are partly persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 1, in the applicant’s arguments pages 7-8, applicant stated, “Nowhere does Kagawa et al. teach a metal oxide layer covering one of the Cu wiring joint parts and between the Cu wiring joint parts at the time of direct bonding, contrary to Claim 1.”, which is persuasive and therefore rejection of claims 1-4, 7-8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Liu et al. in view of Kagawa et al. is withdrawn.
Applicant submitted a Statement of Common Ownership under 35 U.S.C §102(b)(2)(C) regarding reference US 20240222315 A1 published July 04, 2024. The statement is accepted, which disqualified the reference as a prior art. Thus, the rejection claims 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Liu et al. in view of Uzoh et al. (US 20240222315 A1) (hereafter, Uzoh-2315) is withdrawn.
Applicant arguments pages 5-6, applicant recited “Liu et al. expressly teaching the need to remove the metal oxide before hybrid bonding.” And “Liu et al. intentionally removes metal oxide before bonding, as noted in the prior response.”. This argument is not persuasive. The reason is set forth below,
However, Liu et al. Fig. 6 description discloses that the metal pads will tend to oxidize after the etch process if the atmosphere is not controlled, use of a low vacuum, or use of an inert gas to purge the anneal chamber, can be used to prevent or reduce the formation of unwanted metal oxides after the oxide etch process is completed. Therefore, even though optional countermeasure are present, Liu does not expressly teach the need to remove the metal oxides.
With regard to applicant's arguments regarding amended claim 9, the applicant stated, “Liu et al. does not teach any oxygen content in the bonded structure”.
However, Liu et al. in view of GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the bonded structure required by claim 9.
MPEP 2112 (III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims.”
“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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” MPEP 2112.01 (I)
Therefore, the product achieved from Liu et al. in view of GONDCHARTON et al. posses the required oxygen content.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1-11, 19-22 and 42-45 is made over Liu, Ping-Yin (US 8802538 B1) “Liu et al.” in view of GONDCHARTON, Paul (US 20150380383 A1) “GONDCHARTON et al.”.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 20, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 9, lines 15-16, recited “and the first conductive feature is directly
bonded to second conductive feature at the bonding interface,” missing the article “the” in front of the “second conductive feature.”
For Claims 10-11, the preamble recite “The microelectronic structure”. Claims 10-11 are dependent from claim 9, and claim 9 recited “A hybrid bonded structure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the first conductive feature comprises an oxygen content proximate the bonding interface between 1.5 atom. % and 3 atom. %”. However, the specification ¶ [0040] states “oxygen content curve 242 is in a range of about 1.5 atom % to close to 3 atom %.”. The claim has a closed boundaries whereas the specification has an approximation, which are different. Therefore, failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 10-11 inherit the deficiencies of claim 9.
Appropriate correction required.
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 9-11 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, lines 17-18 recites “an oxygen content proximate the bonding interface” without mentioning any specific distance or region. In Fig. 8C, the entire region has oxygen content a range of about 1.5 atom % to close to 3 atom %. Therefore, it is unclear, in which location is the claimed “proximate the bonding interface” and the scope of the claims are unclear.
Claims 10-11 inherit the deficiencies of claim 9.
Claim 11, lines 1-3 recited “wherein the first conductive feature is at least partially separated from the surrounding dielectric material, wherein the separation is at least partially by a metal oxide”. Specification ¶ [0027] stated “In FIG. 4, during the process of oxidation the conductive feature 114a may be decoupled or unpinned from the surrounding second dielectric layer 108, due to some oxidation along sidewalls of the conductive feature 114a and/or the surrounding barrier layer 116.”. Therefore, it is not clear if the separation metal oxide is the oxide of the conductive feature 114a or barrier layer 116. Furthermore claim 11, recited “the surrounding dielectric material”. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, which further depends on claim 9 does not recite “a surrounding dielectric material”. Claim 9 recited “a first dielectric layer” and “a second dielectric layer”. Therefore, it is unclear which dielectric layer claim 11 is referring to, and the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 19-22 and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ping-Yin (US 8802538 B1) “Liu et al.” in view of GONDCHARTON, Paul (US 20150380383 A1) “GONDCHARTON et al.”.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Liu et al. Figs. 2A-3B and 5 discloses a process for hybrid bonding (“a hybrid bonding process” Column 2, Line 55), comprising:
providing a first element (“a top substrate 200” Column 4, Lines 12-13) comprising a first dielectric material (“A dielectric 207” Column 4 line 18) having a first bonding surface (“The surface of dielectric 207 forms a bonding surface 208” Column 4, Lines 20-21), a first conductive feature (“metal pads 205” Column 4 line 19) at least partially embedded in the first dielectric material 207, a metal oxide layer (“he oxidation 209 and 309 forms copper oxide” Column 4, Line 32) formed over the first conductive feature 205 and exposed at the first bonding surface 208;
providing a second element (“a bottom substrate 300” Column 4, Line 13) comprising a second dielectric material (“Dielectric 307” Column 4, Line 26) having a second bonding surface (“The surface 308 of dielectric 307 forms a bonding surface for the bottom substrate 300” Column 4, Lines 27-28), a second conductive feature (“metal pads 305” Column 4, Lines 24-25) at least partially embedded in the second dielectric material 307; and
direct bonding (“the top substrate is turned over and oriented with the bonding surface face to face with the bonding surface of substrate 300, the features are aligned, and the top and bottom substrates are moved into physical contact between the dielectric layers” Column 4, Lines 59-63) the first element 200 to the second element 300, including directly bonding the first dielectric material 207 to the second dielectric material 307.
Liu et al. further discloses, FIGS. 3A and 3B depict the top substrate 200 and the bottom substrate 300 after an oxidation process is performed on the metal pads 205. In an embodiment, the metal pads are copper and the oxidation 209 and 309 forms copper oxide (Column 4, Lines 29-33).
However, Liu et al. does not disclose direct bonding including directly bonding the first dielectric material to the second dielectric material with the metal oxide layer between the first conductive feature and the second conductive feature.
In the similar filed of endeavor of bonding technics, GONDCHARTON et al. Figs 4, 6-8 discloses direct bonding including directly bonding the first dielectric material to the second dielectric material with the metal oxide layer (“the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]) between the first conductive feature and the second conductive feature (“the first and second copper metal layers 2, 4 and the first and second insulating materials 13, 13′ form a bonding interface 6 ensuring a vertical electrical conduction at the bonding of the facing metal pads 12, 12′ and a vertical electrical insulation at the facing insulating materials 13, 13′. Of course, the bonding interface 6 comprises metal metal material bridges 5, cavities whose largest dimension is smaller than or equal to 10 nanometers and Cu/Cu oxide/Cu contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 2. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu et al. further discloses, wherein direct bonding the first dielectric material to the second dielectric material is conducted at room temperature (“the substrates are placed into physical contact at low or room temperature. The dielectric surfaces may begin fusion bonding at this stage in the process.” Column 6, Lines 10-12).
Regarding Claim 3. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu et al. further discloses, further comprising annealing the first element and the second element at an annealing temperature to directly bond the first conductive feature to the second conductive feature (“an anneal is performed on the top and bottom substrates 200 and 300, which are already in contact. The copper pads 205 and 305 will bond and a seamless bond will form” Column 5, Lines 6-9).
Regarding Claim 4. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 3. Liu et al. further discloses, wherein a metal of the metal oxide is copper (“the metal pads are copper and the oxidation 209 and 309 forms copper oxide” Column 4, Lines 31-32) and the annealing temperature is below about 250° C (“a relatively low temperature anneal is performed. The anneal can vary in temperature from 40 degrees C. to over 250 degrees C.” Column 6, Lines 12-14).
Regarding Claim 7. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 4. Liu et al. further discloses, wherein the first conductive feature comprises one or more of copper (“Pads 205 are formed of metal. In an example embodiment, the metal is copper.” Column 4, Lines 16-17), nickel, gold, indium, molybdenum, zinc, tungsten, tantalum, and titanium (“the metal for the metal pads is one of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), aluminum copper (AlCu), nickel (Ni), aluminum germanium (AlGe) and alloys of these metals.” Column 2, Lines 60-64).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 4. Liu et al. further discloses, wherein the second conductive feature comprises one or more of copper (“copper pads 205 and 305” Column 4, Lines 65-66), nickel, gold, indium, molybdenum, zinc, tungsten, tantalum, and titanium (“the metal for the metal pads is one of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), aluminum copper (AlCu), nickel (Ni), aluminum germanium (AlGe) and alloys of these metals.” Column 2, Lines 60-64).
Regarding Independent Claim 9, Liu et al. Figs. 2A-3B discloses a hybrid bonded structure (“a hybrid bonding” Column 2, Line 55) comprising:
a first element (“a top substrate 200” Column 4, Lines 12-13) comprising a first bonding layer (“A dielectric 207 is shown surrounding the metal pads 205” Column 4, Lines 18-19), the first bonding layer comprising:
a first conductive feature (“metal pads 205” Column 4 line 19), and
a first dielectric material surrounding the first conductive feature (“A dielectric 207 is shown surrounding the metal pads 205” Column 4, Lines 18-19),
a second element (“a bottom substrate 300” Column 4, Line 13) comprising a second bonding layer (“The metal pads 305 are shown with similar, but slightly different, irregular surfaces. Dielectric 307 and interlevel dielectric 303 are also shown” Column 4, Lines 24-27), the second bonding layer comprising:
a second conductive feature (“metal pads 305” Column 4, Lines 24-25), and
a second dielectric material (“Dielectric 307” Column 4, Line 26) surrounding the second conductive feature 305,
wherein the first bonding layer is hybrid bonded to the second bonding layer along a bonding interface such that the first dielectric material is directly bonded to the second dielectric material at the bonding interface and the first conductive feature is directly bonded to second conductive feature at the bonding interface (“at step 809 the chosen top and bottom substrates are aligned in a face to face relation. At step 811, the substrates are placed into physical contact at low or room temperature. The dielectric surfaces may begin fusion bonding at this stage in the process. At step 813, a relatively low temperature anneal is performed. The anneal can vary in temperature from 40 degrees C. to over 250 degrees C. and up to 400 degrees C., for example, and the anneal time can vary from a few seconds to a few minutes and up to several hours. During the anneal, metal pad to metal pad bonding occurs. The hybrid bonding process of the embodiments thus forms bonds between both the respective dielectric layers and between the respective metal pads, and the bonds are of sufficient bond strength to support the remaining processes used in completing the devices.” Column 6, Lines 8-23),
wherein the first conductive feature comprises an oxygen content proximate the bonding interface between 1.5 atom. % and 3 atom. %.
However, Liu et al. does not disclose wherein the first conductive feature comprises an oxygen content proximate the bonding interface between 1.5 atom. % and 3 atom. %.
In the similar filed of endeavor of bonding technics, GONDCHARTON et al. Figs 4, 6-8 discloses “the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]; “the first and second copper metal layers 2, 4 and the first and second insulating materials 13, 13′ form a bonding interface 6 ensuring a vertical electrical conduction at the bonding of the facing metal pads 12, 12′ and a vertical electrical insulation at the facing insulating materials 13, 13′. Of course, the bonding interface 6 comprises metal-metal material bridges 5, cavities whose largest dimension is smaller than or equal to 10 nanometers and Cu/Cu oxide/Cu contact areas 9” ¶ [0074].
The recited oxygen content is met by the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al.:
Applicant’s ¶ [0031] discloses “During the annealing process, the elevated annealing temperature and the extended annealing duration may cause the metal oxide layer 124 to go through changes. First of all, oxygen in the metal oxide layer 124 may be released. Part of the oxygen may diffuse into the connected conductive feature 114a, 214. Secondly, some residual metal oxide of the metal oxide layer 124 may migrate away from the initial interface into the connected conductive features 114a, 214.” That is the exact condition for the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al. structure.” Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. "PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)” MPEP 2112 (V).
Furthermore, Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A). The concentration is attained by retained oxide thickness and annealing conditions. Liu et al. discloses “At step 803, a controlled oxidation process is performed to oxidize the metal pads to a certain depth” and GONDCHARTON et al. discloses anneal temperature and duration.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 10. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9. Liu et al. further discloses, wherein the first conductive feature comprises one or more of copper (“Pads 205 are formed of metal. In an example embodiment, the metal is copper.” Column 4, Lines 16-17), nickel, gold, indium, molybdenum, zinc, tungsten, tantalum, and titanium (“the metal for the metal pads is one of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), aluminum copper (AlCu), nickel (Ni), aluminum germanium (AlGe) and alloys of these metals.” Column 2, Lines 60-64).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Liu et al. Figs. 2A-3B discloses a bonded structure, comprising:
a first element (“a top substrate 200” Column 4, Lines 12-13), the first element comprising a first bonding layer, the first bonding layer comprising:
a first dielectric material (“A dielectric 207” Column 4 line 18) having a first upper surface (“The surface of dielectric 207 forms a bonding surface 208” Column 4, Lines 20-21), and
a first conductive feature (“metal pads 205” Column 4 line 19) at least partially embedded in the first dielectric material 207 at the upper surface 208;
a second element (“a bottom substrate 300” Column 4, Line 13), the second element comprising a second bonding layer, the second bonding layer comprising:
a second dielectric material (“Dielectric 307” Column 4, Line 26) having a second upper surface (“The surface 308 of dielectric 307 forms a bonding surface for the bottom substrate 300” Column 4, Lines 27-28), and
a second conductive feature (“metal pads 305” Column 4, Lines 24-25) at least partially embedded in the second dielectric material 307 at the second upper surface 308; and
wherein the first upper surface 208 is directly bonded (“the top substrate is turned over and oriented with the bonding surface face to face with the bonding surface of substrate 300, the features are aligned, and the top and bottom substrates are moved into physical contact between the dielectric layers” Column 4, Lines 59-63) to the second upper surface 308 at a bond interface, and the first conductive feature is directly bonded to the second conductive feature to form a bonded contact (“The copper pads 205 and 305 will bond and a seamless bond will form as shown in FIG. 6” Column 5, Lines 8-9),
However, Liu et al. does not disclose, the bonded contact having an oxygen content greater than 100 ppm of oxygen in metal within about 100 nm of the bond interface.
In the similar filed of endeavor of bonding technics, GONDCHARTON et al. Figs 4, 6-8 discloses “the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]; “the first and second copper metal layers 2, 4 and the first and second insulating materials 13, 13′ form a bonding interface 6 ensuring a vertical electrical conduction at the bonding of the facing metal pads 12, 12′ and a vertical electrical insulation at the facing insulating materials 13, 13′. Of course, the bonding interface 6 comprises metal-metal material bridges 5, cavities whose largest dimension is smaller than or equal to 10 nanometers and Cu/Cu oxide/Cu contact areas 9” ¶ [0074].
The recited oxygen content is met by the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al.:
Applicant’s ¶ [0031] discloses “During the annealing process, the elevated annealing temperature and the extended annealing duration may cause the metal oxide layer 124 to go through changes. First of all, oxygen in the metal oxide layer 124 may be released. Part of the oxygen may diffuse into the connected conductive feature 114a, 214. Secondly, some residual metal oxide of the metal oxide layer 124 may migrate away from the initial interface into the connected conductive features 114a, 214.” That is the exact condition for the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al. structure.” Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant . "PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)” MPEP 2112 (V).
Furthermore, Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A). The concentration is attained by retained oxide thickness and annealing conditions. Liu et al. discloses “At step 803, a controlled oxidation process is performed to oxidize the metal pads to a certain depth” and GONDCHARTON et al. discloses anneal temperature and duration.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 20. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 19. Liu et al. further discloses, wherein the second conductive feature comprises one or more of copper (“copper pads 205 and 305” Column 4, Lines 65-66), nickel, gold, indium, molybdenum, zinc, tungsten, tantalum, and titanium (“the metal for the metal pads is one of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), aluminum copper (AlCu), nickel (Ni), aluminum germanium (AlGe) and alloys of these metals.” Column 2, Lines 60-64).
Regarding Claim 21. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 19. However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein oxygen content is greater than an oxygen saturation level of the first and/or second conductive features within 100 nm of the bond interface.
However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein oxygen content is greater than an oxygen saturation level of the first and/or second conductive features within 100 nm of the bond interface.
The recited oxygen content is met by the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al.:
Applicant’s ¶ [0031] discloses “During the annealing process, the elevated annealing temperature and the extended annealing duration may cause the metal oxide layer 124 to go through changes. First of all, oxygen in the metal oxide layer 124 may be released. Part of the oxygen may diffuse into the connected conductive feature 114a, 214. Secondly, some residual metal oxide of the metal oxide layer 124 may migrate away from the initial interface into the connected conductive features 114a, 214.” That is the exact condition for the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al. structure.” Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. "PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)” MPEP 2112 (V).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 22, Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. disclose the limitations of claim 19. However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein the oxygen content in the bonded contact includes oxygen in a metal oxide formed from a metal of the first conductive structure.
In the similar filed of endeavor of bonding technics, GONDCHARTON et al. Figs 4, 6-8 discloses wherein the oxygen content in the bonded contact includes oxygen in a metal oxide formed from a metal of the first conductive structure (“the portions of the first metal layer 2 and of the second metal layer 4 which delimit the cavities, into copper oxide Cu.sub.2O. This thus generated metal oxide allows filling, at least in part, the cavities. Cu.sub.2O presents indeed a volume that is more significant than the unoxidized copper so that the growth of the copper oxide phase at the surface of the cavities results in filling them” ¶ [0065]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 42, Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9. However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein the oxygen content is greater than 100 ppm.
In the similar filed of endeavor of bonding technics, GONDCHARTON et al. Figs 4, 6-8 discloses “the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]; “the first and second copper metal layers 2, 4 and the first and second insulating materials 13, 13′ form a bonding interface 6 ensuring a vertical electrical conduction at the bonding of the facing metal pads 12, 12′ and a vertical electrical insulation at the facing insulating materials 13, 13′. Of course, the bonding interface 6 comprises metal-metal material bridges 5, cavities whose largest dimension is smaller than or equal to 10 nanometers and Cu/Cu oxide/Cu contact areas 9” ¶ [0074].
The recited oxygen content is met by the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al.:
Applicant’s ¶ [0031] discloses “During the annealing process, the elevated annealing temperature and the extended annealing duration may cause the metal oxide layer 124 to go through changes. First of all, oxygen in the metal oxide layer 124 may be released. Part of the oxygen may diffuse into the connected conductive feature 114a, 214. Secondly, some residual metal oxide of the metal oxide layer 124 may migrate away from the initial interface into the connected conductive features 114a, 214.” That is the exact condition for the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al. structure.” Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant . "PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)” MPEP 2112 (V).
Furthermore, Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A). The concentration is attained by retained oxide thickness and annealing conditions. Liu et al. discloses “At step 803, a controlled oxidation process is performed to oxidize the metal pads to a certain depth” and GONDCHARTON et al. discloses anneal temperature and duration.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 43, Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9. However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein the oxygen content is within 50 nm of the bonding interface.
In the similar filed of endeavor of bonding technics, GONDCHARTON et al. Figs 4, 6-8 discloses “the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]; “the first and second copper metal layers 2, 4 and the first and second insulating materials 13, 13′ form a bonding interface 6 ensuring a vertical electrical conduction at the bonding of the facing metal pads 12, 12′ and a vertical electrical insulation at the facing insulating materials 13, 13′. Of course, the bonding interface 6 comprises metal-metal material bridges 5, cavities whose largest dimension is smaller than or equal to 10 nanometers and Cu/Cu oxide/Cu contact areas 9” ¶ [0074].
The recited oxygen content is met by the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al.:
Applicant’s ¶ [0031] discloses “During the annealing process, the elevated annealing temperature and the extended annealing duration may cause the metal oxide layer 124 to go through changes. First of all, oxygen in the metal oxide layer 124 may be released. Part of the oxygen may diffuse into the connected conductive feature 114a, 214. Secondly, some residual metal oxide of the metal oxide layer 124 may migrate away from the initial interface into the connected conductive features 114a, 214.” That is the exact condition for the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al. structure.” Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant . "PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)” MPEP 2112 (V).
Furthermore, Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A). The concentration is attained by retained oxide thickness and annealing conditions. Liu et al. discloses “At step 803, a controlled oxidation process is performed to oxidize the metal pads to a certain depth” and GONDCHARTON et al. discloses anneal temperature and duration.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 44, Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9. However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein the oxygen content exists in the form of residual metal oxide, free oxygen, and/or dissolved oxygen.
In the similar filed of endeavor of bonding technics, GONDCHARTON et al. Figs 4, 6-8 discloses wherein the oxygen content exists in the form of residual metal oxide, free oxygen, and/or dissolved oxygen (“the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]; “Cu/Cu oxide/Cu contact areas 9” ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Regarding Claim 45, Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9. However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein the oxygen content is greater than an oxygen saturation level of the first conductive features within 100 nm of the bond interface.
The recited oxygen content is met by the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al.:
Applicant’s ¶ [0031] discloses “During the annealing process, the elevated annealing temperature and the extended annealing duration may cause the metal oxide layer 124 to go through changes. First of all, oxygen in the metal oxide layer 124 may be released. Part of the oxygen may diffuse into the connected conductive feature 114a, 214. Secondly, some residual metal oxide of the metal oxide layer 124 may migrate away from the initial interface into the connected conductive features 114a, 214.” That is the exact condition for the combination of Liu et al. as and GONDCHARTON et al. structure.” Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. "PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)” MPEP 2112 (V).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. using the bonding structure including the metallic oxide layer of GONDCHARTON et al. so that mechanically strengthened and the vertical electrical conductivity is improved depending on the conductivity of the two oxide natures (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0065]) and in order to ensuring a strong bonding energy, a very good electrical conductivity and an inexpensive implementation (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0077]). Because of the presence of the metal oxide forming contact areas 9, the bonding interface 6 presents a bonding energy which is improved and suitable for carrying out subsequent steps, in particular a mechanical thinning, according to the aimed applications (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0074]). Thus, when implementing the method, the metal oxide that is formed at the bonding interface allows generating metal/oxide/metal contact areas at the cavities, thereby strengthening the bonding energy at the interface. It is then possible to apply mechanical operations on one of or on both substrates, in particular a mechanical thinning of one of the substrates without detachment of the bonding interface. Moreover, when the formed metal oxide is conductive or semi-conductive, the obtained bonding presents an electrical conduction better than that obtained by a conventional direct bonding between two metals having the considered roughnesses. Thus, the components that are formed on the structure show improved performances (GONDCHARTON et al., ¶ [0012]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ping-Yin (US 8802538 B1) “Liu et al.” in view of GONDCHARTON, Paul (US 20150380383 A1) “GONDCHARTON et al.” further in view of (US 20140027908 A1) “Tsai et al.”.
Regarding Claim 11. Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. discloses the limitations of claim 10. However, Liu et al. does not disclose, wherein the first conductive feature is at least partially separated from the surrounding dielectric material, wherein the separation is at least partially by the disposed metal oxide.
In the similar field of endeavor of semiconductor devices, Tsai et al. Figs. 1e-1g discloses, wherein the first conductive feature is at least partially separated from the surrounding dielectric material, wherein the separation is at least partially by the disposed metal oxide (“a self-aligned metal oxide barrier 30 is formed. In one embodiment, structure 100 is placed in an inert environment, such as 95% H.sub.2, 5% N.sub.2 and annealed at a temperature of from about 200 C to about 400 C for a time period of from about 30 minutes to about 120 minutes, for example. As a result of the anneal, a relatively thin metal oxide barrier is formed around the copper alloy features (e.g., around horizontal interconnects 26 and vertical interconnects 28).” ¶ [0021]).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the bonding structure of Liu et al. as modified by GONDCHARTON et al. and using a metal oxide to separate the conductive feature from the surrounding dielectric material of Tsai et al. so that metal oxide barrier prevents diffusion of copper into the surrounding dielectric materials (Tsai et al., ¶ [0021]).
Conclusion
Prior art (US 20070292603 A1) “Dordi et al” filing date “2006-08-30” made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKHEE SARKER-NAG whose telephone number is (703)756-4655. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:15 AM to 5:30 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, YARA J. GREEN can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/AKHEE SARKER-NAG/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights