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 Acknowledged
Applicant election without traverse of Invention I Species I-2 (directed to a method shown in Fig. 20) in the response (Response, filed 08/28/26) to Restriction Requirements (mailed 07/15/26) has been acknowledged.
In addition to the chosen method Species I-2, Applicant choose for examination without traverse Species II-1 (shown Fig. 10). But this figure and corresponding species belongs to device species not chosen for examination since Applicant cancelled all device claims 10-20 in the Response and added method claims 21-31.
Due to confusing features of the Response, Examiner contacted Attorney for the application, Mr. Ruojiang Zhang on 09/14/26 who confirmed that method Species I-2 is chosen that is shown in Fig. 20.
Applicant stated that Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are read on the chosen species. Examiner does not quite agree with the statement for the following reason: Chosen for examination Fig. 20 is directed to a wafer in which only certain portions of a dielectric surface are treated by process 46 (see paragraph 0045 of the published application US 20250239564), which is considered as a local treatment (by paragraph 0047 of the published application). However, Claim 5 refers to a global treatment process. In addition, paragraph 0047 of the published application also teaches that HMDS can be used for both- local and global treatments, where APTES and MPTMS can be used only for global treatments. Based on paragraph 0047, original Claims 7 and 8, referencing APTES and MPTMS, respectively, shall be excluded from consideration, since they are directed to a treatment procedure 46 conducted either with APTES or with MPTMS.
Status of Claims
Claims 5 and 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 21-31 are examined on merits herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0063 of the published application, referring to Figs. 8-10, recites “X-axis” and “Y axis”, but none of these figures shows an X axis and an Y axis.
Paragraph 0080 of the published application contradicts to figures of the application: Paragraph 0080 refers to a minimum carbon concentration of the interface region, and the specification teaches that an interface region is region 162. At the same time, Figures 8-10 of the current application show that carbon concentration reaches minimum in two dielectric regions that are disposed beyond the interface region 162 (see Figs. 8-10 for support). It looks like either Figs. 8-10 shall be corrected to show that the interface region 162 is extended to at least to a region with the minimum carbon concentration, or the specification shall be corrected to say that the concentration of carbon is reducing with a distance from the interface region.
Appropriate corrections/clarifications are required without introduction of a new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 31 recites: “oxygen having a peak oxygen concentration at the bonding interface”. To avoid ambiguousness, Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “oxygen having a minimum peak oxygen concentration at the bonding interface”.
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.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 21: Claim 21 recites (lines 5-12): “the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer comprise an interface region comprising: a first portion of the first dielectric layer; and a second portion of the second dielectric layer, wherein the interface region comprising a first carbon concentration, and wherein the first portion of the first dielectric layer and the second portion of the second dielectric layer form an interface, and the interface has a second carbon concentration higher than the first carbon concentration, and wherein the second carbon concentration is a peak carbon concentration”. The recitation is unclear since the interface is also a part of an interface region which has a first carbon concentration (see paragraph 0062 of the published application identifying the (bonding) interface 165 as a part of the interface region 162).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “contact of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer creates a bonding interface; an interface region extends from the bonding interface into a certain depth of the first dielectric layer and into a similar depth of the second dielectric layer, wherein the bonding interface comprises a peak carbon concentration that is higher than a carbon concentration in other portions of the interface region”.
In re Claim 22: Claim 22 recites: “the interface region further comprises two minimum carbon concentrations, with a first one of the two minimum carbon concentration being in the first portion of the first dielectric layer and a second one of the minimum carbon concentration being in the second portion of the second dielectric layer”. The recitation is unclear since the specification is unclear on the minimum carbon concentration (such as where it is located - outside the interface region or within the interface region, as is shown in the objection to the specification).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited part of Claim 22 was omitted from consideration.
In re Claim 24: Claim 24 recites: “the interface region comprises a higher oxygen concentration, and wherein the interface has a minimum oxygen concentration lower than the higher oxygen concentration”. In view of interpretation of Claim 21, on which Claim 24 depends, for this Office Action, based on Figs. 8-10, the cited recitation of Claim 24 was interpreted as: “the bonding interface has a lower concentration of oxygen than other parts of the interface region”.
In re Claim 25: In view of interpretation of Claim 21, on which Claim 25 depends, the recitation of Claim 25: “the interface region further comprises a higher nitrogen concentration, and wherein the interface has a minimum nitrogen concentration lower than the higher nitrogen concentration”, for this Office Action, was interpreted as: “the bonding interface has a lower concentration of nitrogen than other parts of the interface region”.
In re Claims 23 and 26-27: Claims 23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 21.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jun et al. (US 2025/0112155).
In re Claim 1, Jun teaches a method comprising (Fig. 1):
performing a plasma treatment 103 (paragraph 0038) on a first wafer (shown with changing numbers from 200 to 500 in Figs. 2-5, paragraphs 0025-0037, and with other sequentially changing numbers in following figures);
performing a first treatment process 104 (paragraph 0040) on the first wafer, wherein the first treatment process results in the first wafer (shown by number 700, Fig. 7, paragraphs 0042-0043 and shown by numbers 1300 and 1400 in Figs. 13-14, paragraphs 0056-0058) to be more hydrophobic (by having hydrophobic structures 701 – as they are shown in Fig. 7, while similar hydrophobic structures are identified by numbers 1301 and 1401 in Figs. 13-14) than before the first treatment process (when all structures in to be bonding region 202 were hydrophilic - paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0033-0034);
pre-bonding 106 (Fig. 1, Abstract, paragraph 0060) the first wafer to a second wafer 1521 (as shown in Figs. 15-16, paragraphs 0059-0066) through wafer-to-wafer bonding; and
performing an annealing process 106 (Fig. 1, paragraph 0067) to bond the first wafer to the second wafer.
In re Claim 3, Jun teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first treatment process 104 (of Fig. 1, paragraphs 0040- 0043) is performed using Hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS).
In re Claim 9, Jun teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above and further comprising performing a second treatment process 104 (Fig. 1) on the second wafer (called Chiplet in Fig. 1, though may be called a wafer or a die, paragraph 0019), wherein the second treatment process results in the second wafer to be more hydrophobic than before the second treatment process (paragraphs 0040-0043, 0055).
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.
As far as Claims 21-27 are understood, Claims 2 and 21-23, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun.
In re Claim 2, Jun teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above, including the first treatment process of applying HMDS (paragraph 0043).
Jun does not teach that the first treatment process is configured to
result in a bond wave speed to be reduced wherein the bond wave speed is a propagation speed of a bond wave of the pre-bonding. However, the result of the first treatment is a property of a structure having more hydrophobic functionality than before the first treatment, as shown for Claim 1. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-10.2019], I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: “
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, it would be inherent for the method of Claim 1 to create, after the first treatment, a structure in which a bond wave speed is reduced.
In re Claim 21, Jun teaches a method comprising:
forming (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, 13-16) a first package component (including substrate 1501 in Fig. 15, paragraph 0062) comprising a first dielectric layer 204 (paragraph 0026);
forming (Fig. 15) a second package component 1521 (paragraph 0063) comprising a second dielectric layer 1513 (paragraph 0064); and
bonding (operation 106 in Fig. 1, paragraph 0067) the first package component to the second package component, so that the second dielectric layer 1513 is joined to the first dielectric layer (Fig. 16 shows a structure of bonded packages, paragraph 0068), wherein
the first dielectric layer 204 and the second dielectric layer 1513 comprise an interface region (shown in Fig.16) comprising:
a first portion of the first dielectric layer 204; and
a second portion of the second dielectric layer 1513, wherein
the interface region comprises a first carbon concentration – obviously, when each dielectric comprises silicon carbonitride or/and when each dielectric layer comprises silicon oxide (paragraph 0026) and treated by HMDS for creating hydrophobic surfaces (paragraphs 0040-0043), wherein
the first portion of the first dielectric layer 204 and the second portion of the second dielectric layer 1513 form an interface (inherently, due to their bonding) that has a second carbon concentration – obviously, either due to dielectric used SiCN or due to use of HMDS that contains Si, H, N, and C atoms.
Jun does not teach that the second carbon concentration is higher than the first carbon concentration, where the second carbon concentration is a peak carbon concentration. However, the method steps taught by Jun (as disclosed for Claims 1 and the above portions of Claim 21) are the same as method steps of the current application, while a carbon distribution within the interface region is a property created by bonding of two dielectric layers both comprised carbon. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-10.2019], I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: “
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, it would be inherent for the method of Claim 21 to create a structure in which a maximum carbon concentration exists at the bonding interface.
In re Claim 22, Jun teaches the method of Claim 21, wherein the interface region further comprises two minimum carbon concentrations, with a first one of the two minimum carbon concentrations being in the first portion of the first dielectric layer, and a second one of the two minimum carbon concentrations being in the second portion of the second dielectric layer (e.g., in accordance with the claim interpretation).
In re Claim 23, Jun teaches the method of Claim 22 as cited above, wherein both of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer comprise SiCN (as shown for Claim 21).
In re Claim 26, Jun teaches the method of Claim 21 as cited above, wherein (Figs. 15-16, paragraph 0064) the first package component 1501 and the second package component 1521 are joined to each other with bonds that comprise fusion bonds – that are created when dielectric 204 of the first package component is bonded to dielectric 1513 of the second package component (as appropriate for a hybrid bonding, Abstract).
In re Claim 27, Jun teaches the method of Claim 26, wherein the bonds that join the first package component to the second package component further comprises metal-to-metal direct bonds of pads 203 (paragraph 0026) of the first package component 1501 with pads 1514 (paragraph 0064) of the second package component 1521 (as appropriate for a hybrid bonding, Abstract).
In re Claim 28, Jun teaches a method comprising:
forming (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 13-16) and a first device die (including substrate 1501 in Fig. 15, paragraph 0062) comprising a first silicon-comprising dielectric layer 204, that can be SiCN (paragraph 0026);
forming (as shown only in Fig. 15, but described in Fig. 1) a second device die 1521 (paragraph 0063) comprising a second silicon-comprising dielectric layer 1513 (if made similar to 204 (paragraph 0064); and
joining (step 106 in Fig. 1, paragraph 0067, and as in shown in Fig. 16 structurally) the first silicon-comprising dielectric layer 204 to the second silicon-comprising dielectric layer 1513 to form a bonding interface, wherein the first silicon-comprising dielectric layer and the second silicon-comprising dielectric layer comprise:
carbon – inherently, at least because each dielectric is SiCN), and because each dielectric is treated by HMDS to create hydrophobic surfaces, and HMDS (as is known in the art) contains C (and N) with a carbon concentration at the bonding interface, wherein
carbon concentrations obviously exists in an interface region and in directions pointing away from the bonding interface, wherein the interface region comprises the bonding interface and parts of the first silicon-comprising dielectric layer and the second silicon-comprising dielectric layer; and
nitrogen having (inherently) a concentration at the bonding interface and the interface region.
Jun does not teach that the maximum (peak) carbon concentration exists in the bonding interface and reduces in the interface region in a direction from the bonding interface. Jun further does not teach that a nitrogen concentration is minimum at the bonding interface and is higher in other parts of the interface region. However, the method steps taught by Jun (as disclosed for Claims 1 and the above portions of Claim 28) are the same as method steps of the current application, while a carbon distribution and a nitrogen distribution within the interface region (including the bonding interface) is a property created by bonding of two dielectric layers both comprised carbon and nitrogen. In accordance with MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims [R-10.2019], I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: “
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, it would be inherent for the method of Claim 28 to create a structure in which a maximum carbon concentration exists at the bonding interface and reduces in the direction from the bonding interface and in which a minimum nitrogen concentration exists at the bonding interfaces and is higher in the direction from the bonding interface.
In re Claim 29, Jun teaches the method of Claim 28 as cited above and wherein, as shown for Claim 28, the first silicon-comprising dielectric layer and the second silicon-comprising dielectric layer comprise SiCN.
In re Claim 30, Jun teaches the method of Claim 29 as cited above, wherein, for the same reasons that are described for carbon and nitrogen concentration distributions for Claim 28, it would be inherent for the structure of Claim 29 that the carbon has two minimum carbon concentrations on opposite sides of the bonding interface.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun in view of Clark et al. (US 2005/0032293).
In re Claim 4, Jun teaches the method of Claim 3 as cited above, but does not detail the first treatment with HMDS, and, accordingly, does not teach that the first treatment process is performed by conducting a hot steam generated from the HMDS to the first wafer.
Clark teaches (paragraphs 0043-0046) that an HMDS (used for creating a hydrophobic surface, paragraph 0007) applies as a hot steam (at a temperature of 65 oC).
Jun and Clark teach analogous arts directed to creation of a hydrophobic layer using an HMDS, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying (or understanding) the Jun method in view of the Clark method, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and the Clark method successfully created a hydrophobic surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Jun method (or to understand the Jun method of application of HMDS) by applying the HMDS as a hot steam either in order to enable application of HMDS or in order to make application of the HMDS safer (Clark, Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun in view of Yu et al. (US 2013/0140713).
In re Claim 6, Jun teaches the method of Claim 3 as cited above and further teaches (Fig. 7) that the first treatment with the HMDS is a local treatment that creates a local region 701 with hydrophobic properties, e.g., that creates region 701 in a second portion of the first wafer.
Jun does not teach, at least explicitly, that the first treatment process comprises:
masking a first portion of the first wafer; and performing a local treatment using the HMDS on a second portion of the first wafer. Jun, however, identifies the HMDS as a self-assembled monolayer SAM (paragraph 0043).
Yu teaches (paragraph 0041) that use of a hydrophobic SAM is conducted by masking a first portion of a wafer and applying a corresponding treatment in an masked (second) portion of the wafer.
Jun and Yu teach analogous arts of creating a hydrophobic layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying (understanding) the Jun method in view of the Yu method, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and the Yu method was successfully used for creation of a hydrophobic surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to use (modify) the Jun method of Claim 3 by creating (per Yu) a mask in a first portion of the first wafer, in order to create the hydrophobic surface in the second portion of the wafer and when it is desirable creating the hydrophobic surface only in the second region of the first wafer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 31 contain allowable subject matter, and Claim 25 depends on Claim 24. The current Office Action objects Claim 31 as being dependent on the rejected based Claim 28.
Reason for Identification Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 24: Although Jon makes it obvious that the first and second dielectric layers contain oxygen (at least because they were treated by oxygen-containing plasma (paragraph 0038), Jun and other prior arts of record do(es) not anticipate and do(es) not make it obvious that a minimum oxygen concentration is at the (bonding) interface.
Re Claim 31: The prior arts of record do(es) not anticipate and do(es) not make it obvious that a minimum oxygen concentration is at the (bonding) interface.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the current Office Action above, also include at least: Uzoh et al. (US 2025/0079364) and Suwito et al. (US 2024/0079376) teaching that a bonding interface has a higher concentration of materials used for activation and/or a last chemical treatment than other regions; Tan et al. (US 2023/0163156) – teaching a wafer-to-wafer bonding and an anneal temperature, Lee et al. (US 2022/0270918) and Liu et al. (US 2020/0212004) – teaching creation of oxygen at “to be bonded” surfaces of two wafers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 09/16/26
Prosecution Insights