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 § 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)(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) 1,4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (hereinafter Kim, US 2024/0379717).
In regards to independent claim 1, Kim teaches a method of preparing a first substrate for bonding with a second substrate, comprising:
depositing a first barrier layer of a first dielectric material on a dielectric layer of the first substrate (Kim, Fig. 6C, DFB); and
depositing a first bonding layer of a second dielectric material on the first barrier layer (Kim, Fig. 6C, 310);
wherein the second dielectric material has a higher water diffusivity than the first dielectric material (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118], silicon oxide has higher water diffusivity.).
In regards to independent claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the second dielectric material comprises a silicon oxide, a silicon nitride, a silicon oxynitride, silicon carbonitride, silicon oxycarbonitride, or a combination thereof (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118]).
In regards to independent claim 5, Kim teaches wherein the second dielectric material consists essentially of a silicon oxide (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118]).
In regards to independent claim 6, Kim teaches wherein the first dielectric material comprises an aluminum oxide, a titanium oxide, a hafnium oxide, a tantalum oxide, silicon carbonitride, or a combination thereof (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118]).
In regards to independent claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the first dielectric material consists essentially of an aluminum oxide (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118]).
In regards to independent claim 8, Kim teaches further comprising contacting the first bonding layer of the first substrate with a corresponding first bonding layer of the second substrate under conditions sufficient to bond the first bonding layer of the first substrate to the first bonding layer of the second substrate (Kim, [0116], annealing).
In regards to independent claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the first bonding layer of the first substrate is bonded to the first bonding layer of the second substrate with a bond strength of greater than or equal to about 2 J/m2 (Kim, [0116], annealed silicon oxide bonds are great than 2J/m2).
In regards to independent claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the conditions sufficient to bond the first bonding layer of the first substrate to the first bonding layer of the second substrate comprise annealing at a temperature from about 300° C. to about 400° C. for a period of time greater than or equal to about 30 min (Kim, [0168]).
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) 2, 3, 13, 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
In regards to dependent claim 2, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first bonding layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm. Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of King. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
In regards to dependent claim 3, Kim teaches does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first barrier layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm. Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of King. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
In regards to independent claim 13, Kim teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device, comprising:
forming a first dielectric layer on a surface of a first semiconductor substrate (Kim, Fig. 6C, 330b);
forming a first barrier layer on a surface of the first dielectric layer (Kim, Fig. 6C, DFB);
forming a first bonding layer on a surface of the first barrier layer (Kim, Fig. 6C, 310;
wherein the first bonding layer has a higher water diffusivity than the first barrier layer (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118], silicon oxide has higher water diffusivity.).
Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first bonding layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm.
Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
In regards to dependent claim 15, Kim teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising forming a second dielectric layer on a surface of a second semiconductor substrate (Kim, Fig. 6C, 330b);
forming a second barrier layer on a surface of the second dielectric layer (Kim, Fig. 6C, DFB);
forming a second bonding layer on a surface of the second barrier layer (Kim, Fig. 6C, 310); and
contacting a surface of the first bonding layer with a surface of the second bonding layer under conditions sufficient to bond the first bonding layer to the second bonding layer (Kim, [0116], annealing);
wherein the second bonding layer has a higher water diffusivity than the second barrier layer (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118], silicon oxide has higher water diffusivity.);
wherein the conditions sufficient to bond the first bonding layer to the second bonding layer comprise annealing at a temperature from about 300° C. to about 400° C. for a period of time greater than or equal to about 30 min (Kim, [0168]).
Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the second bonding layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm;
Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
In regards to dependent claim 17, Kim teaches wherein each bonding layer individually comprises a silicon oxide, a silicon nitride, a silicon oxynitride, silicon carbonitride, silicon oxycarbonitride, or a combination thereof; and/or wherein each barrier layer individually comprises an aluminum oxide, a titanium oxide, a hafnium oxide, a tantalum oxide, silicon carbonitride, or a combination thereof (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118], silicon oxide has higher water diffusivity.).
In regards to independent claim 18, Kim teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a first substrate comprising a first dielectric bonding layer having a lower surface disposed over, and in contact with an upper surface of a first dielectric barrier layer (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118], silicon oxide has higher water diffusivity.).
wherein the first dielectric bonding layer has a higher water diffusivity than the first dielectric barrier layer (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118], silicon oxide has higher water diffusivity.); and
Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first dielectric bonding layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm.
Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
In regards to dependent claim 19, Kim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 18, wherein the first substrate further comprises a first metal layer disposed thereon next to the first dielectric bonding layer (Kim, Fig. 10B, 125).
In regards to dependent claim 20, Kim teaches the semiconductor device of claim 18, further comprising a second substrate comprising a second dielectric bonding layer having a lower surface disposed over, and in contact with an upper surface of a second dielectric barrier layer;
wherein an upper surface of the first dielectric bonding layer is bonded to an upper surface of the second dielectric bonding layer (Kim, [0116], annealing);
wherein the second dielectric bonding layer has a higher water diffusivity than the second dielectric barrier layer (Kim, [0123], DFB = aluminum oxide, 310 is silicion oxide [0118], silicon oxide has higher water diffusivity.); and
Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the second dielectric bonding layer is less than or equal to about 100 nm.
Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or teach an obvious combination of the following limitations when taken with the claim as a whole:
11. such that an upper surface of the one or more metal layers and an upper surface of the first bonding layer form a hybrid bonding surface.
12. contacting the hybrid bonding surface of the first substrate with a corresponding hybrid bonding surface of a second substrate such that the first bonding layer and the at least one metal layer of the first substrate each contact a corresponding first bonding layer and at least one metal layer of the second substrate under conditions sufficient to bond the first bonding layer of the first substrate to the first bonding layer of the second substrate.
14. such that an upper surface of the first metal layer and an upper surface of the first bonding layer form a first hybrid bonding surface.
16., such that an upper surface of the first metal layer and an upper surface of the first bonding layer form a first hybrid bonding surface;
wherein the second dielectric layer, the second barrier layer and the second bonding layer are formed next to a second metal layer disposed on a surface of the second substrate such that an upper surface of the second metal layer and an upper surface of the second bonding layer form a second hybrid bonding surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights