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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 9-10, and 16-18 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the limitation “wherein a depth of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer is 5 nm or less” is indefinite as it is not understood what is meant by “a depth” of a material layer. The term depth would make sense for an opening or a recess. It is not understood what opening or recess to which the claim is referring.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 17-18, The term “pitch density” doesn’t make sense, resulting in the claim being indefinite. Pitch refers to the distance between adjacent repeating features. Terms such as “pad pitch” or “pad density” are understandable terms. It is not understood what is required by the claim limitation “pitch density”.
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, 2, 4, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0299986) [Hereafter “Sun”].
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Sun [Figs.10-14] discloses a method for hybrid bonding a first semiconductor substrate to a second semiconductor substrate, the method comprising:
forming a first plurality of metal pads [112] on a face of the first substrate [110];
forming a second plurality of metal pads [104] on a face of the second substrate [102];
selectively forming a first dielectric layer [130] over a first insulating material [120] of the first substrate [Paras.30-31] [Figs.10-12];
selectively forming a second dielectric layer [130] over a second insulating material [it appears readily apparent the surface of substrate 102 comprises an insulating layer] of the second substrate [Paras.39-41] [Fig.13];
placing the face of the first substrate against the face of the second substrate so that the first dielectric layer contacts the second dielectric layer [Figs.13-14]; and
heating the first substrate and the second substrate to bond the first plurality of metal pads to the second plurality of metal pads [Para.45] [Fig.14];
Sun [Figs.10-14] discloses a hybrid bonded device formed by:
forming a first plurality of metal pads on a face of a first substrate;
forming a second plurality of metal pads on a face of a second substrate;
selectively forming a first dielectric layer over a first insulating material of the first substrate;
selectively forming a second dielectric layer over a second insulating material of the second substrate;
placing the face of the first substrate against the face of the second substrate so that the first dielectric layer contacts the second dielectric layer; and
heating the first substrate and the second substrate to bond the first plurality of metal pads to the second plurality of metal pads [Discussed above];
Sun [Figs.10-14] discloses a method for hybrid bonding a first semiconductor substrate to a second semiconductor substrate, the method [Discussed above] comprising:
forming a first plurality of metal pads on a face of the first substrate;
forming a second plurality of metal pads on a face of the second substrate;
selectively forming a first dielectric layer over a first insulating material of the first substrate;
selectively forming a second dielectric layer over a second insulating material of the second substrate;
placing the face of the first substrate against the face of the second substrate so that the first dielectric layer contacts the second dielectric layer; and
heating the first substrate and the second substrate to bond the first plurality of metal pads to the second plurality of metal pads,
wherein the first and second dielectric layers are formed by an area selective deposition process [Paras.31-37; Figs.10-12 discloses the selective deposition of layer 130].
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 12, Sun [Figs.10-14] discloses a method
wherein the first dielectric layer [130] and the second dielectric layer [130] are formed by an area selective deposition process [Paras.31-37; Figs.10-12 discloses the selective deposition of layer 130];
wherein the first and second dielectric layers [130] are capping dielectric materials [Note: capping dielectric material appears to be an intended use of the dielectric material. Dielectric layer [130] of Sun is capable of being used as a capping layer];
wherein the first plurality of metal pads [112] and the second plurality of metal pads [104] are copper [Paras.28,39].
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) 3, 6, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0299986) in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0299040) [Hereafter “Gupta”].
Regarding claim 3, Sun fails to explicitly disclose the method,
wherein the area selective deposition process includes forming a treatment layer over the first plurality of metal pads and the second plurality of metal pads.
However, Gupta [Fig.2] discloses a method wherein the area selective deposition process includes forming a treatment layer [222a,222b] over the first plurality of metal pads and the second plurality of metal pads [112a,112b].
It would have been obvious to provide the treatment layer to facilitate the bonding process, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Sun fails to explicitly disclose the specific semiconductor device as claimed. However, Gupta [Fig.4] discloses and makes obvious the various applications and semiconductor devices comprising a hybrid bonding structure,
wherein at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate includes an optical waveguide [412,406].
It would have been obvious to provide wherein at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate includes an optical waveguide, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7-8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0299986) in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0299040), and further in view of Fountain, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0096842) [Hereafter “Fountain”].
Regarding claims 7-8 and 20, Sun fails to explicitly disclose the pad layout and density, as well as the specific semiconductor device as claimed. However, Gupta [Fig.4] discloses and makes obvious the various applications and semiconductor devices comprising a hybrid bonding structure, comprising a plurality of radio-frequency switches [420,422] of the first substrate. It would have been obvious to provide a plurality of radio-frequency switches [420,422] of the first substrate, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Fountain [Figs.8-9] discloses and makes obvious various pad patterns and layouts with varying densities as well as separate arrangements with different pad sizes and pitches. Fountain discloses and makes obvious wherein the first substrate and the second substrate include pad-free regions; and wherein adjacent metal pads are separated by a space of at least 15 µm in the pad-free regions. It would have been obvious to provide the claimed pad layout, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0299986) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0171050) [Hereafter “Chen”].
Regarding claim 11, Sun fails to explicitly disclose wherein a width of the first plurality of metal pads and the second plurality of metal pads is 5 µm or less. However, Chen [Fig.7] discloses a method wherein a width of the first plurality of metal pads and the second plurality of metal pads [118] is 5 µm or less [Para.34]. It would have been obvious to include the claimed pad width, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0299986) in view of Fountain, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0096842) [Hereafter “Fountain”].
Regarding claim 13, Sun fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the first and second dielectric layers have an Rq of 0.5 nm or less. However, Fountain discloses wherein each of the first and second dielectric layers have an Rq of 0.5 nm or less [Para.22]. It would have been obvious to include the roughness as claimed, since it would have been obvious to apply one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898