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 .
Election/Restrictions
Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 8/24/2026. Applicants have elected Group I, corresponding to 1-13.
Applicant's argument: Applicant does not contend that the three inventions are other than independent or distinct as claimed. Applicants contend only that the requirement fails the second prong: that the Examiner has shown at most some burden rather than the serious burden the standard requires, and that searching the elected Invention I will also uncover the most relevant art for the non-elected inventions. Applicant accordingly requests search and examination of all pending claims.
Examiner response: Each of the three inventions was given its own classification on the face of the requirement, as applicant's own remarks reproduce. Separate classification is itself an appropriate showing under MPEP 808.02(A), and it was made. Applicants do not argue that any of the three classifications is incorrect, nor that the three inventions in fact share a single classification. The request for reconsideration is denied, and the election is deemed final. Claims 14-20 stand withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142(b) and are not examined in this action.
Specification
The specification submitted 3/8/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 3/8/2024 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprised of” should be changed to “comprising” to align with standard American English. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 Claim 11, the applicant recites “the crystallization barrier
has a thickness less than the recess” however it is unclear how a recess can be less than thickness. A curative amendment would recite "a thickness less than a depth of the recess." For purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as requiring a barrier thickness less than the depth of the recess, the recess being measured downward from the uppermost surface of the
aluminum oxide bonding layer.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily-984 (US # 20240071984) in view of Pan-945 (US # 20200051945).
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim scope can be ascertained in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections and/or claim objections above, Tapily-984 teaches a method for substrate processing, comprising:
providing a first substrate (202: 212 and 206) in preparation for a hybrid bonding process (see [0043-44, 57] discussing operations 102-110);
forming a hybrid bonding layer (210 with interconnect 208 exposed within it; [0048-49]; see Fig. 2B) on the first substrate (shown), the hybrid bonding layer comprising
an aluminum oxide bonding layer (210; [0048]) on an uppermost surface of the first substrate (shown, see also [0048]);
a metal contact (208; [0046-47]); and
Although Tapily-984 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach forming the hybrid bonding layer comprising a crystallization barrier on an uppermost surface of the metal contact, wherein the crystallization barrier disrupts crystallization of the aluminum oxide bonding layer on the metal contact during the hybrid bonding process.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Pan-945 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a method comprising forming a crystallization barrier (cobalt caping layer 711; see [0045-47] and also shown as capping layer 101 in Fig. 1) on an uppermost surface (CMP dished top surface; [0047]) of a metal contact (703), wherein the crystallization barrier disrupts crystallization of an oxide bonding layer on the metal contact during a hybrid bonding process (this is the natural result of the cobalt capping layer on copper; see [0044-47]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the method of Tapily-984 with the capping-layer integration suggested by Pan-945 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Pan-945 would be to employ a method comprising forming the hybrid bonding layer comprising a crystallization barrier on an uppermost surface of the metal contact, wherein the crystallization barrier disrupts crystallization of the aluminum oxide bonding layer on the metal contact during the hybrid bonding process. The rationale for this obvious modification is that forming a cobalt capping layer provides leakage and electromigration, reduces voids, and it can be deposited selectively ([0027, 28, 45-47]). Within the anneal of temperature range (100-500 deg C) taught in Tapily-984, the cobalt lattice variant on copper would prevent aluminum oxide from crystallizing and migrating over the top surface of the metal contact.
Regarding Claim 2, Tapily-984 teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: hybrid bonding the first substrate to a second substrate via the hybrid bonding layer (first wafer 202 aligned with and bonded to second wafer 204 using a hybrid bonding process; FIG. 4B; [0056]- [0062], the interconnect structures may expand to physically contact each other).
Regarding Claim 3, Tapily-984 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metal contact is copper ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 6, Pan-945, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the method wherein the crystallization barrier is formed of a material (cobalt) with a crystal lattice structure similar to a crystal lattice structure of the metal contact (copper, similar lattice structure).
Regarding Claim 7, Pan-945, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the material is cobalt with a face-centered cubic (FCC) crystal lattice structure which has a lattice constant of 3.9 angstroms (cobalt selectively formed on copper by thermal CVD followed by plasma treatment will have the same FCC cobalt variant as disclosed by the applicant; see Pan-945 at [0063] describing the formation).
Regarding Claim 10, Tapily-984 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the crystallization barrier is formed using a selective atomic layer deposition (ALD) process ([0048]). Also Pan-945 teaches “selectively depositing a conductive material in the recess using one or more thin film deposition processes including, but not limited to, CVD, PVD, ALD, electrochemical depositions, or any combination thereof.” (see [0060]).
Regarding Claim 12, Tapily-984 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the aluminum oxide bonding layer is formed on silicon dioxide ([0046, 48]).
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily-984 (US # 20240071984) in view of Wang-982 (US # 20090087982).
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim scope can be ascertained in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections and/or claim objections above, Tapily-984 teaches a method for substrate processing, comprising:
providing a first substrate (202: 212 and 206) in preparation for a hybrid bonding process (see [0043-44, 57] discussing operations 102-110);
forming a hybrid bonding layer (210 with interconnect 208 exposed within it; [0048-49]; see Fig. 2B) on the first substrate (shown), the hybrid bonding layer comprising
an aluminum oxide bonding layer (210; [0048]) on an uppermost surface of the first substrate (shown, see also [0048]);
a metal contact (208; [0046-47]); and
Although Tapily-984 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach forming the hybrid bonding layer comprising a crystallization barrier on an uppermost surface of the metal contact, wherein the crystallization barrier disrupts crystallization of the aluminum oxide bonding layer on the metal contact during the hybrid bonding process.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Wang-982, in an analogous field, teaches a crystallization barrier (ruthenium film 205 deposited on a metal feature such as copper; see the FIGS. 2A-2B embodiment); on an uppermost surface (exposed upper surface 212) of the metal contact (copper bulk layer 204).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the method of Tapily-984 with the Ru-capping-layer integration suggested by Wang-982 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Wang-982 would be to employ a method comprising forming the hybrid bonding layer comprising a crystallization barrier on an uppermost surface of the metal contact, wherein the crystallization barrier disrupts crystallization of the aluminum oxide bonding layer on the metal contact during the hybrid bonding process. The rationale for this obvious modification is that the ruthenium-containing film prevents copper diffusion and dewetting at the copper boundary region and promotes adhesion while decreasing diffusion and agglomeration ([0017]) and is deposited selectively on the copper alone so that the adjacent dielectric surface remains free of it ([0027]). Within the anneal of temperature range (100-500 deg C) taught in Tapily-984, the cobalt lattice variant on copper would prevent aluminum oxide from crystallizing and migrating over the top surface of the metal contact.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang-982, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the method wherein the crystallization barrier is formed of a material with a crystal lattice structure different from a crystal lattice structure of the metal contact (ruthenium lattice structure is "dramatically different" from that of copper).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang-982, as applied to claim 4, further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the material is ruthenium with a hexagonal close-packed (HCP) crystal lattice structure with a lattice constant of 2.7 angstroms (HCP structure and lattice constant of ruthenium are inherent properties of the element).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily-984 (US # 20240071984) in view of Pan-945 (US # 20200051945) and further in view of Enquist-371 (US # 20180226371).
Regarding Claim 11, Tapily-984 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the uppermost surface of the metal contact (208) has a recess (see Figs 2 and [0044, 49]) below an uppermost surface of the aluminum oxide bonding layer (210) and
wherein the crystallization barrier has a thickness (Pan-945 teaches the cap thickness, [0046] about 1 to 5 nanometers) less than the recess such that the metal contact can expand during a subsequent annealing process of the hybrid bonding process (see Tapily-984 at [0062-63]).
Neither Tapily-984 nor Pan-945 expressly states the thickness-to-recess relationship claim 11 recites.
Nonetheless, the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Enquist-371 is in the same field of direct hybrid bonding of copper pads capped by a conductive barrier, and it teaches:
wherein the crystallization barrier (conductive barrier 7, formed from layer 6) has a thickness (the thickness of layer 6; [0032]) less than the recess (thickness of the layer 6 can be less than the amount of dishing of conductor 1 / barrier 2, as shown in FIG. 3, [0032]) such that the metal contact (conductor 1 with conductive barrier 7 on top; [0031]; FIG. 4) can expand during a subsequent annealing process of the hybrid bonding process ([0034, 38, 43]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the cobalt cap applied to the recessed interconnect 208 of Tapily-984 in view of Pan-945 with the cap-thinner-than-the-recess relationship suggested by Enquist-371 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Enquist-371 would be to employ a crystallization barrier having a thickness less than the recess such that the metal contact can expand during a subsequent annealing process of the hybrid bonding process. The rationale for this obvious modification is that leaving the capped contact surface 1-10 nm below the surrounding bond-surface dielectric preserves the channel that Tapily-984 itself requires for its expansion bonding ([0049, 62]) and that Enquist-371 identifies as producing a void-free, manufacturable direct hybrid bond ([0029, 31]). Independently, Pan-945's cap range of about 1 to 5 nm ([0046]) and Tapily-984 's recess range of 1- 10 nm ([0049]) overlap such that a cap thinner than the recess results from ordinary selection within the disclosed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, although Tapily-984 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the aluminum oxide bonding layer is formed on silicon carbon nitride.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Enquist-371 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a method wherein a dielectric (3; see [0025]; forming the hybrid bond surface, see also [0029, 31]) bonding layer is formed on silicon carbon nitride ([0027] teaches silicon carbide nitride as a suitable material for dielectric material used with Cu and Al BEOL processes).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the dielectric material of Tapily-984 with the silicon carbide nitride material suggested by Enquist-371 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Enquist-371 would be to employ a method of claim 1, wherein the aluminum oxide bonding layer is formed on silicon carbon nitride. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use silicon carbon nitride since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily-984 (US # 20240071984) in view of Pan-945 (US # 20200051945) and further in view of Hou-075 (US # 20210320075).
Regarding Claim 8, although Tapily-984 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the crystallization barrier has a thickness of one monolayer.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Hou-075 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a method wherein a crystallization barrier (first oxidation barrier layer 992 is formed on first bonding pads 988) has a thickness of one monolayer ([0112]; see Fig. 7A).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the barrier on the metal contact of Tapily-984 at the thickness suggested by Hou-075 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Hou-075 would be to employ a method of claim 1, wherein the crystallization barrier has a thickness of one monolayer. The rationale for this obvious modification is that a barrier performing its protective function at the pad top surface was known in the art at thicknesses from 0.3 nm to 3 nm ([0110]) and down to a single self-assembled molecular layer ([0112)). Selecting a barrier at the thin end of that established range is the predictable way to obtain the protective function while preserving the recess the primary reference requires.
Regarding Claim 9, it is rejected for essentially the same reasoning as was presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights