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 Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
3. Claims 11, 12, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0102461) in view of Lu et al. (US 2005/0173803).
Re claim 11, Lee teaches, under BRI, Figs. 6-8, [0013-0022], a method for forming a wafer structure, comprising:
-providing a substrate (100);
-forming an interconnection structure (114, 116, 118) on the substrate (100);
-forming a cap layer (ESL 121) on the interconnection structure (114, 116, 118);
-forming a top dielectric layer (122 or 154) on the cap layer (121);
-forming a pre-bonding structure (162, 164, 171) on the top dielectric layer (122 or 154), wherein the pre-bonding structure (162, 164, 171) comprises an inner layer (162) on the top dielectric layer (122 or 154), an outer layer (171), and a layer (164) being contiguous with the inner layer (162) and disposed along a perimeter of the outer layer (171) (Fig. 6); and
-forming a plurality of copper pads (copper layer 179) in the pre-bonding structure (162, 64, 171), the top dielectric layer (122 or 154) and the cap layer (121) (Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly teach an intermediate absorbent layer.
Lu teaches the use of a porous dielectric layer in a multilayered dielectric structure [0021].
As taught by Lu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain an intermediate absorbent layer included in the pre-bonding structure as claimed, because it aids in improving mechanical strength in the formed structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lu in combination with Lee due to above reason.
Re claim 12, in combination cited above, Lee teaches, Fig. 6, wherein the intermediate absorbent layer (consider ILD 164) (see also Lu teaching) is exposed within a peripheral region (22) at an edge portion of the wafer structure (e.g., portion of 164 is not covered by ESL 171 in region 22).
Re claim 14, in combination cited above, Lee teaches, Fig. 6, wherein the outer layer (171) does not cover the intermediate absorbent layer (consider 164) within the peripheral region (22).
Re claim 15, in combination cited above, Lu teaches wherein the intermediate absorbent layer comprises porous dielectric material and has a thickness of about 100-200 angstroms (e.g., 300 angstrom or less, see claim 21).
Re claim 20, Lee teaches, Fig. 8, wherein the plurality of copper pads (179) penetrates through the pre-bonding structure (162, 164, 171), the top dielectric layer (122 or 164), and the cap layer (121), and is electrically connected to the interconnection structure (114, 116, 118).
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Lu as applied to claims 11 & 12 above, and further in view of Miyagoe et al. (US 2019/0176433).
The teachings of Lee/Lu have been discussed above.
Re claim 13, Lee teaches wherein the peripheral region (22) has a width.
Lee/Lu does not teach the width of about 10 mm.
Miyagoe teaches a width of in a range of 0.1 mm to 20 mm [0032].
As taught by Miyagoe, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the peripheral region with width of about 10 mm, because it aids in achieving a desired width of a peripheral region within a structure having a dielectric multiple layer film. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Miyagoe in combination with Lee/Lu due to above reason.
5. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Lu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (US 6,709,918)
The teachings of Lee/Lu have been discussed above.
Re claims 16 & 18, Lee/Lu does not teach wherein the inner layer comprises nitrogen-doped silicon carbide and has a thickness of about 200-2000 angstroms; and wherein the cap layer comprises nitrogen-doped silicon carbide and has a thickness of about 500-700 angstroms.
Ng teaches the use of nitrogen-doped silicon carbide and thickness of between about 100 and 1000 Angstroms (see claim 8).
As taught by Ng, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain nitrogen-doped silicon carbide as the inner layer and the cap layer as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ng in combination with Lee/Lu due to above reason.
6. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Lu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bao et al. (US 2002/0094674)
The teachings of Lee/Lu have been discussed above.
Re claims 17 & 19, Lee/Lu does not teach wherein the outer layer comprises silicon oxynitride and has a thickness of about 200-800 angstroms; and wherein the top dielectric layer comprises silicon oxide and has a thickness of about 9000-9500 angstroms.
Bao teaches the use of silicon oxynitride and silicon oxide and thickness of from about 10 to about 10000 angstroms [0054].
As taught by Bao, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain silicon oxynitride as the outer layer and silicon oxide as the top dielectric layer as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Bao in combination with Lee/Lu due to above reason.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 4/8/26
Prosecution Insights