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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species II in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention. Species I is drawn to a method in which an insulating layer 304 at a distance from a contact 306 is recessed with a mask 310, to leave an isolation barrier 320, and a dielectric layer 318 is filled in the recess. Species II, however, is drawn to an embodiment wherein a dielectric layer 416 is formed first and a gap 420 is formed therein and filled in with an isolation barrier 424. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: a)the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) particularly different keyword searches would be needed to search for the features specific to each species identified above for example searching for the mask structure of species I as opposed to the gaps of species II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5, 9-10 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
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 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the isolation barrier is a distance from the metal contact” in line 1, which would seem to define the isolation barrier as a distance and would not clearly define a structural relationship between the isolation barrier and the metal contact, the claim will be interpreted to mean --the isolation barrier is spaced apart from the metal contact by a distance—as this appears to be consistent with the specification and the rest of the claim which requires “the distance between the isolation barrier and the metal contact includes a portion of the dielectric layer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shih et. Al. (US 10770424 B1 hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 1, Shih teaches in Figs. 2-9 with associated text a method for processing a substrate, comprising: providing a first substrate 110 for a hybrid bonding process (Fig. 6, col. 4, lines 19-20 the hybrid bonding process is described in Figs. 8-9 col. 7, lines 6-21); and forming, on the first substrate, a hybrid bonding layer 121, 162 and 131) that comprises a dielectric layer 121, a metal contact 131, and an isolation barrier 162 surrounding the metal contact that is between the metal contact and at least a portion of the dielectric layer (Fig, 6-7, col. 5, lines 59-63).
Regarding claim 2, Shih teaches hybrid bonding the first substrate to a second substrate 210 via the hybrid bonding layer (Figs. 8-9 col. 7, lines 6-21).
Regarding claim 3, Shih teaches the isolation barrier is formed of metal or dielectric material (BCB col. 7, lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 4, Shih teaches the metal contact is formed of copper (col. 4, lines 35-39).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kao et. Al. (US 20220328447 A1 hereinafter Kao).
Regarding claim 1, Kao teaches in Fig. 16 with associated text a method for processing a substrate, comprising: providing a first substrate 10 for a hybrid bonding process (Fig. 16, [0118]); and forming, on the first substrate, a hybrid bonding layer (14, 13 and 12) that comprises a dielectric layer 14, a metal contact 12, and an isolation barrier 13 surrounding the metal contact that is between the metal contact and at least a portion of the dielectric layer (Fig. 16, [0118)).
Regarding claim 2, Kao teaches hybrid bonding the first substrate to a second substrate 210 via the hybrid bonding layer (Fig. 16, [0118]).
Regarding claim 3, Kao teaches the isolation barrier is formed of metal or dielectric material (polyethylene [0094] for example is a dielectric).
Regarding claim 4, Kao teaches the metal contact is formed of copper ([0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Kao teaches the dielectric layer is an aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer ([0155]).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kagawa et. Al. (US 20130009321 A1 hereinafter Kagawa).
Regarding claim 1, Kagawa teaches in Figs. 41A-41K with associated text a method for processing a substrate, comprising: providing a first substrate 955 for a hybrid bonding process (Fig. 41J-41K, [0536] and [0539]); and forming, on the first substrate, a hybrid bonding layer (951, 944 and 941) that comprises a dielectric layer 951, a metal contact 941, and an isolation barrier 944 surrounding the metal contact that is between the metal contact and at least a portion of the dielectric layer (Fig. 41J, , [0494)).
Regarding claim 2, Kagawa teaches hybrid bonding the first substrate to a second substrate 210 via the hybrid bonding layer (Fig. 41J-41K, [0536] and [0539]).
Regarding claim 3, Kagawa teaches the isolation barrier is formed of metal or dielectric material (metal [0530] and [0533]).
Regarding claim 4, Kagawa teaches the metal contact is formed of copper ([0531]).
Regarding claim 14, Kagawa teaches the isolation barrier is a distance from the metal contact and wherein the distance between the isolation barrier and the metal contact includes a portion of the dielectric layer (Fig. 41J) with insufficient volume to completely cover the metal contact during a subsequent annealing process of the hybrid bonding process (during the hybrid bonding process the metal contact 941 is joined to 961 and so is not completely covered by the dielectric layer Fig. 41J-41K, [0536] and [0539]).
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 of this title, 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao as applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Kao teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the aluminum oxide layer is formed on a dielectric material 11 on the first substrate (Fig. 16, [0118]) that is different from a material of the aluminum oxide layer.
Kao does not specify the dielectric material on the first substrate is different from a material of the aluminum oxide layer, however Kao teaches an embodiment wherein the dielectric material on the first substrate is different from a material of a dielectric layer [0104] similar to the aluminum oxide layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the dielectric material on the first substrate to be different from a material of the aluminum oxide layer because according to Kao by using such a structure bonding between the insulation dielectrics can be better implemented, and a process is relatively simple and is easy to implement ([0106]).
Regarding claim 8, Kao teaches the isolation barrier extends from an uppermost surface of the dielectric material to at least an uppermost surface of the aluminum oxide layer (Fig. 16).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Shih.
Regarding claim 11, Kao teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the aluminum oxide layer is deposited first on the dielectric material (Fig. 16, [0104]), the metal contact is then formed through the aluminum oxide layer (Fig. 16, [0064])) a selective etch process is then used to create a gap G1 surrounding the metal contact ([0072]).
Kao does not specify an isolation material is then globally deposited to gapfill the gap surrounding the metal contact, and then a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process is used to form the isolation barrier around the metal contact with a width equal to the gap surrounding the metal contact.
Shih teaches in Figs. 2-9 with associated text an isolation material 160 similar to that of Kao is then globally deposited to gapfill the gap surrounding the metal contact (Fig. 5, col. 5, lines 16-18), and then a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process is used to form the isolation barrier around the metal contact with a width equal to the gap surrounding the metal contact (Fig. 6, col. 5, lines 34-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a method similar to that of Shih to form the isolation barrier of Kao because according to Shih by using such a method, the first filling material layer 162 and the second filling material layer 262 include soft material such that they can absorb the stresses generated from the expansion of the conductive structures, therefore, the issues of damages and delamination of bonded dielectric layers can be prevented (col. 7, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 12, Kao in view of Shih teaches the method of claim 11.
Kao does not specify the width is greater than a maximum misalignment tolerance value of the hybrid bonding process such that aluminum oxide migration over the metal contact is circumvented during a subsequent annealing process of the hybrid bonding process up to the maximum misalignment tolerance value however Shih teaches aligning the (Fig. 9, Col. 6, lines 46-51).
Shih teaches in Figs. with associated text an isolation material 160 similar to that of Kao is then globally deposited to gapfill the gap surrounding the metal contact (Fig. 5, col. 5, lines 16-18), and then a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process is used to form the isolation barrier around the metal contact with a width equal to the gap surrounding the metal contact (Fig. 6, col. 5, lines 34-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a method similar to that of Shih to form the isolation barrier of Kao because according to Shih by using such a method, the first filling material layer 162 and the second filling material layer 262 include soft material such that they can absorb the stresses generated from the expansion of the conductive structures, therefore, the issues of damages and delamination of bonded dielectric layers can be prevented (col. 7, lines 37-42).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kagawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the aluminum oxide layer is formed on a dielectric material 11 on the first substrate (Fig. 16, [0118]) that is different from a material of the aluminum oxide layer.
Kao does not specify a maximum width of the isolation barrier is determined based on a maximum acceptable leakage current through the dielectric layer between adjacent metal contacts, however Kagawa teaches generally arranging insulating layers and there dimension to avoid leakage current [0179] so that it would have been obvious to determine a maximum width of the isolation barrier based on a maximum acceptable leakage current through the dielectric layer between adjacent metal contacts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a maximum width of the isolation barrier based on a maximum acceptable leakage current through the dielectric layer between adjacent metal contacts because according to Kagawa by doing so a leakage current may be prevented [0179].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights