DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18646459 application filed April 25, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on April 28, 2026. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 16-20 and withdrawal of claims 4 and 7 acknowledged.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the invention of Group I, claims 1-15, Species 1a and Species 2a, in the reply filed on April 28, 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 §818.03(a)). Claims 4, 7 and 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18477399, as shown in the amendment filed March 2, 2026. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the front-side interconnect structure recited in claim 12 of copending Application No. 18477399 may be considered a bonding layer recited in the present application.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18477399, as shown in the amendment filed March 2, 2026. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the polishing by using a polishing pad recited in claim 12 of copending Application No. 18477399 reads on the mechanical polishing process recited in the present application.
Claim Interpretations
Applicant has elected Species 1a and Species 2a in response to the Election/Restriction requirement. Species 1a is directed to the limitation the thinning process on the diamond layer and the laser treatment on the top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy are performed simultaneously. Species 2a is directed to the limitation planarizing the top portion of the diamond layer is performed at the same time as performing the second laser treatment on the top portion of the diamond layer. Claim 1 recites the limitation “performing a laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a laser beam; and performing a thinning process on the diamond layer to remove the top portion of the diamond layer.”. For the purpose of examining this limitation is interpreted as the performing a laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a laser beam and the performing a thinning process on the diamond layer to remove the top portion of the diamond layer are executed simultaneously. Claim 8 recites the limitation “(t)he method of claim 1, wherein performing the thinning process on the diamond layer comprises performing a mechanical polishing process or a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process on a surface of the diamond layer”. For the purpose of examining this limitation is interpreted as the thinning process on the diamond layer comprises performing a mechanical polishing process or a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process on a surface of the diamond layer is simultaneous with the performing a laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a laser beam.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “performing a first laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a first laser beam having a first laser power; performing a second laser treatment on the top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a second laser beam having a second laser power, wherein the first laser power is greater than the second laser power; and planarizing the top portion of the diamond layer to remove the top portion of the diamond layer.”, since the performing a first laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer and the performing a second laser treatment on the top portion of the diamond layer is equivalent to a laser treatment on the top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy, and the planarizing the top portion of the diamond layer to remove the top portion of the diamond layer is equivalent to the thinning process on the diamond layer, for the purpose of examining this limitation is interpreted as the planarizing the top portion of the diamond layer to remove the top portion of the diamond layer occurs at the same time as the performing a first laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a first laser beam having a first laser power and the performing a second laser treatment on the top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a second laser beam having a second laser power Claim 21 recites the limitation “performing a laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a laser beam; and removing the top portion of the diamond layer by performing a planarization process on the top portion of the diamond layer.”. Since the removing the top portion of the diamond layer by performing a planarization process on the top portion of the diamond layer is equivalent to the thinning process on the diamond layer and the planarizing the top portion of the diamond layer, for the purpose of examining this claimed limitation is interpreted as the performing a laser treatment on a top portion of the diamond layer by applying laser energy to the top portion of the diamond layer using a laser beam and the removing the top portion of the diamond layer by performing a planarization process on the top portion of the diamond layer are executed simultaneously.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Clevenger et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6255712), hereinafter “Clevenger”, in view of Chen et al. (CN117773661A), hereinafter “Chen”.--Claim 1: Clevenger teaches a method of fabricating a semiconductor device (Col. 1, Lines 6-13), comprisingforming a device comprising interconnecting structure 5 (Fig. 4);forming a bonding layers 6 and 7 over the interconnecting structure 5 (Fig. 4; Col. 5, Lines 1-12 );forming a diamond layer 9 over the bonding layers 6 and 7 (Fig. 5; Col. 5, Lines 12-16), wherein the diamond layer 9 is optionally planarized, such as by using an etch back process or CMP (Col. 4, Lines 51-57). Clevenger is silent about a method for the etch back process to planarize the diamond layer. Chen, also directed to a semiconductor processing method, teaches that diamond film may be polished by using a laser, wherein the large structural protrusions on the surface of the diamond are ablated and removed using the instantaneous energy of the laser (Ref #1) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the laser ablation method to planarize the diamond layer in the invention of Clevenger because Clevenger is silent about a method for the etch back process to planarize the diamond layer, and Chen teaches that this would be effective. It is noted that the ablation would make the diamond layer 9 thinner.--Claims 2, 5: Chen further teaches that the laser produces microcracks and graphitizes the diamond surface (Ref #2).--Claims 3, 6: It is noted that the exposing to the laser ablates a portion of the surface of the diamond layer, thus thin down the diamond layer.--Claim 8: It is noted that Clevenger discloses that the flattening may be achieved by CMP, as shown above.--Claims 9, 11: Chen further teaches to adjust the laser power during the polishing in the range 250-1200 mW (Ref #3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to start polishing at a first power then adjust the power to a second power greater than the first power in the invention of Clevenger modified by Chen.--Claims 10: Chen further teaches that the laser beam has a pulse width of 8-12 ns and a power of 250-1200 mW, and the spot size may be adjusted by a concave lens and a convex lens (Ref #1). Therefore, although Chen is silent about a power density, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the pulse width, the power and the spot size, such as the produce the claimed power density of 10 mJ/cm2 to 10 J/cm2 because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). -- Claim 11: It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to repeat the laser beam treatment, such as by using a different laser apparatus, to improve the surface roughness.--Claim 12: Chen further teaches that the laser produces microcracks and graphitizes the diamond surface (Ref #2).--Claim 15: It is noted that the exposing to the laser ablates a portion of the surface of the diamond layer, thus thin down the diamond layer.
Claims 13-14 and 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Clevenger in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kande et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190305074), hereinafter “Kande”:--Claims 13, 21, 22: Clevenger modified by Chen teaches the invention as above. Clavenger further teaches that the diamond layer 9 substitutes for an interlevel dielectric layer (abstract), but is silent about the thickness of the diamond layer 9.Kande, also directed to fabricating a semiconductor device, teaches that an interlevel dielectric layer may have a thickness about 1-1.4 um ([0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to deposit the diamond layer 9 to a thickness of about 1-1.4 um because Clavenger teaches that the diamond layer 9 substitutes for an interlevel dielectric layer but is silent about the thickness, and Kande teaches that such thickness would be effective.--Claim 14: Chen further teaches that the diamond layer has a surface roughness 0.8 um after the polishing (Ref #4). Chen further teaches that the laser power and the scanning speed may be adjusted to improve the surface roughness (Ref # 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the laser parameters to produce a surface roughness less than 50 nm because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). --Claim 22: It is noted that the laser ablation planarizes the surface of the diamond layer.--Claims 23, 24: Chen further teaches that the laser produces microcracks and graphitizes the diamond surface (Ref #2).--Claim 25: Clevenger further teaches that the removal of the diamond layer may be partially removed during the planarization so that some diamond remains on a lower level to provide more mechanical support (Col. 6, Lines 7-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the laser parameters to leave an optimum amount of diamond, such as 100 nm- 10 um, om the substrate because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights