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 without traverse in the reply filed on 8/19/2026. Applicants have elected Group I and Species Aii, corresponding to 1-9 and 16-20. The examiner also acknowledges new 21-26, and those are examined below.
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s cancellation of 10-15 (although the examiner notes that there is inconsistency in the applicant’s response regarding the canceled claims).
Invention Group II and Species Ai, corresponding to claims 2-6 and 17-18, is withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification
The specification submitted 5/16/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 5/16/2024 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each claim defines the etching process by the result the process achieves, and not by any chemistry, condition or other attribute of the process itself. The specification describes the result. It describes no process that achieves the result - no etchant identified as producing the recited relation, no condition identified as producing it, and no example in which it was produced. The disclosure accordingly does not convey to a person skilled in the art that the inventors were in possession, at the time of filing, of the subject matter the claims cover.
The claims are functional in form and generic in scope. Claim 9 recites the etching process has a higher etching rate to the diamond and has a lower etching rate to the carbon-based material layer and recites nothing else about the process. As set out at B 1 below, claim 9 recites no etchant and inherits none; claim l 's performing an etching process is not narrowed anywhere in the chain leading to claim 9. Claim 9 therefore covers every etching process, in every chemistry, at every condition, in every apparatus, that produces the recited relation, and covers each of them by virtue of the relation alone. Claim 26 covers every oxygen or ozone plasma etching process that produces the relation against any diamond-like carbon material, including the compositions of claims 22 and 23. Each claim is a genus defined by a functional limitation.
What the specification describes, and what it does not. The relation is described at [0048], quoted in full at B2 below. That is a description of a result. As to any process that achieves it, the specification supplies the following and nothing further: that the etch of Step SP56 is an oxygen or ozone plasma, or uses fluorine-containing compounds ([0046]); and that the end point may be found by monitoring surface roughness ([0048]). Neither statement is offered as, or capable of being, the means of producing the recited relation, for the reason given at B3(a): the same two chemistry sentences appear verbatim at [0023] as the chemistry of an etch that produces a different relation, quantified there at up to l 00: 1. A disclosure that names the same chemistry for the claimed relation and for its opposite has not identified a process that achieves the claimed relation. The specification therefore discloses no species of the claimed genus. Nor does it identify any structural or compositional feature common to the members of the genus by which a person skilled in the art could recognize them; it does not say what it is about an etch that makes it one that removes diamond faster than diamond-like carbon. The state of the art is not relied on as support for this ground. What the prior art measures bears on Ground B, where it is set out at B3(e); the question here is what applicant's own disclosure conveys, and it is answered within the four comers of that disclosure.
A patentee may claim a genus by the function its members perform, but only on a disclosure that shows possession of the genus so defined. Ariad, quoted at MPEP 2161.01,
subsection I: “the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result.”
And, in the same discussion: “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.” The Office's statement of the same rule is at MPEP 2161.01, subsection I: “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is perfom1ed or the result is achieved.” That sentence appears in a section concerned with computer-implemented inventions, but the proposition is taken from Ariad, which concerned neither computers nor software, and it is not confined to any technology. The requirement is met by disclosing a representative number of species falling within the genus, or structural features common to the genus, such that a person skilled in the art can visualize or recognize its members. The specification here discloses neither.
Claim 9 was present on filing. There is accordingly a presumption that it is adequately described. MPEP 2163, subsection I.A (“There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed”). That presumption is not conclusive, and the same subsection states that “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims.” The presumption is overcome here, on these facts. The claim's own text, which is part of the original disclosure, states the result and nothing else; the description elsewhere adds no species; and the one paragraph that addresses the relation qualifies it, saying the difference “may not be large” and the process “less selective or non-selective” ([0048]). A disclosure whose whole account of the claimed subject matter is a statement of the result, qualified in the same breath, describes a wish for the result rather than possession of the invention that achieves it. Claim 9 is the broader of the two claims (it is unconfined as to chemistry) and the gap between what is described and what is claimed is correspondingly the wider.
Claim 26 was added by the response and claim listing filed August 19, 2026. It carries no presumption of adequate description; the question is whether the application as filed describes it. Claim 26 is the closer case of the two, and the examiner states as much. It is confined to an oxygen or ozone plasma, which is a chemistry the specification names at [0046]; to that extent the disclosure describes something within the claim. The ground is nevertheless made, for two reasons. First, naming the chemistry is not describing the species: [0046] names the same chemistry at [0023] for an etch producing a different relation, so the naming does not identify which oxygen or ozone plasma etch is one that removes crystalline diamond faster than diamond-like carbon, and the claim covers only those that do. Second, the claim reads on any diamond-like carbon material, including every composition of claims 22 and 23, and the specification reports no material within that range for which the relation was obtained.
No rejection is made for new matter, and none of the claim language is found to be absent from the application as fi led; the words of claims 9 and 26 are supported at [0046] and [0048]. The finding is not that applicant added subject matter but that the subject matter the claims cover is broader than what the disclosure shows applicant to have had. Nor is this ground an alternative way of stating Ground B. Ground A would remain if the relation were shown to be obtainable without undue experimentation, because the question it asks is what the disclosure shows applicant possessed, not what a skilled artisan could achieve. See MPEP 2161 (the written description requirement is separate from enablement); MPEP 2 163, subsection I.
Applicant may (i) identify disclosure in the application as filed that describes a process achieving the recited relation, as distinct from the relation itself; (ii) amend the claims to recite the process by its own attributes - chemistry, conditions, or a property common to the operative processes - to the extent the application as filed supports it; or (iii) cancel the claims. Evidence of what a person skilled in the art could have achieved does not answer this ground, the inquiry being what the four comers of the specification convey. It may, however, answer Ground B, and applicant is directed to B5.
Claims 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9 recites "The method of claim 8, wherein the etching process has a higher etching rate to the diamond and has a lower etching rate to the carbon-based material layer." Claim 9 depends from claim 8, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1. Claim 9 recites no etchant and inherits none. Claim 1 recites only "performing an etching process"; the chemistry of that process is nowhere narrowed in the chain leading to claim 9. Claim 9 therefore reads on the recited relation however obtained, in any chemistry, at any condition, in any apparatus.
Claim 26 recites the same relation of crystalline diamond against a diamond-like carbon material layer ("a lower etching rate to the diamond-like carbon material layer") for an oxygen or ozone plasma etch. It is confined as to chemistry to the extent of that recitation, and to no further extent; it reads on any diamond-like carbon material, including the amorphous carbon compositions of claim 22 and the fluorine-, chlorine-, hydrogen-, oxygen- or nitrogen-containing amorphous carbon compositions of claim 23.
Neither recites a ratio, a minimum excess, a duration, or any condition under which the two rates are to be compared. Any excess whatever, however small, in the recited direction satisfies both claims.
The etching step of the elected species is Step SP56, described at [0046] and [0048]. As to chemistry, [0046] states: "In some embodiments, the etching process includes performing a plasma etching process using oxygen containing plasma such as oxygen (02) plasma or ozone (03) plasma. In some embodiments, the etching process uses etchants including fluorine-containing compounds." ([0046]). As to the etch-rate relation, (0048] states, in full: "In some embodiments, the etching process may have different etching rates toward the materials of the thermal conductor material film 410 and of the carbon-based material layer 420. In some embodiments, the etching process shows a higher etching rate toward the thermal conductor material film 410 and a lower etching rate toward the carbon-based material layer 420 (or the layer 421). In some embodiments, the etching process performed shows a higher etching rate for crystalline diamond, relative to the etching rate for the DLC material(s). However, since carbon exists in both of the diamond and DLC materials, the differences in the etching rates for both materials may not be large, such etching process is less selective or non-selective, when compared with the previously described selective etching process. In some embodiments, the end point of the etching process may be dete1mined by monitoring the surface roughness in real-time and/or in a time-control mode." ([0048]).
That is the whole of the disclosure of the claimed relation. Nothing elsewhere in the specification adds to it. B3.
The factors of In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988), are applied; see MPEP 2164.01 (a). Five of them are dispositive here and are taken in turn.
(a) The amount of direction or guidance presented - none is correlated to the claimed direction. The chemistry sentences of [0046] are not offered as the means of producing the recited relation. They cannot be, because the identical chemistry sentences appear verbatim in the specification's description of the other species, where the rate relation is the opposite in magnitude and is quantified at up to 100:1. [0023], describing Step SP26 of the flowable dielectric species, states: "In some embodiments, the etching process includes performing a plasma etching process using oxygen containing plasma such as oxygen (02) plasma or ozone (03) plasma. In some embodiments, the etching process uses etchants including fluorine-containing compounds." ([0023]) The two passages are word for word the same. The variable that changes between the two species in the specification's own account is not the etchant but the counterpart material - an organic dielectric or polymeric material at [0023], a diamond-like carbon material at [0046] and [0048]. The specification therefore does not identify chemistry, or anything else within the practitioner's control, as the thing that produces the claimed relation. A person skilled in the art who wished to practice claim 9 or claim 26 would learn from the specification only that the etch is an oxygen or ozone plasma, or uses fluorine-containing compounds, which is what the same specification says of an etch producing a different relation.
(b) The absence of any process condition. The specification states no radio-frequency power, no bias, no chamber pressure, no gas flow rate, no gas ratio, no substrate temperature and no process time for any etching step anywhere in the application. The description was searched in full for each of these. The specification is not generally silent about process parameters: it gives the chemical-mechanical polish "a polishing pad with a Shore D hardness larger than 50 and a down force larger than 2 psi" ([0040]), gives the corresponding smaller-than-SO and less-than-2-psi values for the other polish, and gives thermal-process temperature bands for the bonding operations. The parameters are supplied for the mechanical step and withheld for the step on which claims 9 and 26 depend.
(c) The absence of a working example, and the contrast the specification itself draws. There is no example, no run, and no measured pair of rates anywhere in the application. For the non-elected species the specification does supply a number ("the etching selectivity ranging from about 100: l to about 10:1 (diamond: dielectric)" ([0023])) and claims 4 and 5 recite it. The quantification appears where the relation is the ordinary one and is absent where the relation is the one no reference of record teaches.
(d) The specification's own qualification. The final substantive sentence of [0048] states that because carbon exists in both materials "the differences in the etching rates for both materials may not be large, such etching process is less selective or non-selective." A specification that tells the reader the claimed difference may not be appreciable, and that the process may be non-selective, does not teach the reader how to obtain a difference in the recited direction. On the specification's own account, a practitioner following it would expect to obtain an etch that removes the two materials at rates he cannot distinguish, which is the parity condition, not the claimed condition.
(e) The state of the prior art and the level of predictability. Every document that speaks to the relation states it in the opposite direction or states parity. Brewer-335: "The PACE etching rate for a diamond substrate is generally always less than that for the coating which is used" ([0023]), stated generally and expressly governing "the first and any subsequent dry etching steps (c)." Brewer-335's own worked example: "SiO2 Etch Rate 0.3 μm/min; Diamond Etch Rate about 0.3 μm/min" (Table II, [0063]): parity. FR 2938373 Al, claim 5 and p. 20, 11. 19 to 22: a smoothing layer that etches at substantially the same rate as the diamond. Han-is-939, the only reference of record that etches a carbon-based layer and a diamond film together in an oxygen plasma, describes the carbon layer as consumed (col. 3, ll. 37 to 40). Yamazaki-144 (US 4975144), retrieved and read for this emission, supplies the only measured comparison in the record and supplies it within the carbon family itself. Its Fig. 9 plots, against the etchant gas on the abscissa, the etching rate of a carbon coating of Vickers hardness 1000 kg/mm2 and the etching rate of a carbon coating of Vickers hardness 2000 kg/mm2, together with the self-bias voltage. The series are identified in its own text: “the self-bias voltage (circular marks), the etching rate of carbon coating having a Vickers hardness of 1000 kg/mm2 (rectangular marks), and the etching rate of carbon coating having a Vickers hardness of 2000 kg/mm2 (triangular marks), respectively in cases using, as the etchant, NF3, H2 and 02” (col. 8, 11. 33 to 39). The stated conditions are 60 W high-frequency input power, an etchant introduction rate of 50 SCCM, room substrate temperature and a chamber pressure of 3 Pa (col. 8, 11. 39 to 43). Read from the drawing sheet, in the oxygen column the softer coating etches at approximately 305 A/min and the harder coating at approximately 140 A/min, a ratio of about 2.2 to 1 in favor of the softer material; the NF 3 column shows approximately 285 against 115, about 2.5 to 1 the same way; only in H2, where both rates are low, do the two approach one another. (Fig. 9 bears no printed data labels. The values above are read from the drawing sheet at the resolution of the printed figure and are given as approximations; the direction and the approximate ratio, not any particular value, are what is relied on. Applicants may traverse on the reading of the figure, and the examiner will reconsider on a reasoned traverse.) The relation the figure reports is that within the carbon family, in an oxygen plasma and at fixed conditions, etching rate falls as hardness rises. Crystalline diamond is harder than any diamond-like carbon material (a fact the primary reference states in its own terms, calling diamond “the hardest known material” (Brewer-335 [0003])). A person skilled in the art, taking Yamazaki-144 as it reads, would expect crystalline diamond to be removed more slowly than a diamond-like carbon layer in an oxygen plasma, not faster. No document of record reports an etch that removes crystalline diamond faster than it removes a diamond-like carbon material, and one document of record reports a measured relation running the other way within the carbon family. The claimed direction is therefore contrary to what the art of record teaches a person skilled in the art to expect, and the less the claimed result is predictable from the art, the more the specification must supply. MPEP 2164.0S(a).
The examiner does not undertake to prove that the claimed relation cannot be obtained. The requirement is a reasonable basis to question the objective truth of the statement relied on for enablement. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220,223 (CCPA 1971); MPEP 2164.04. That basis is supplied here by two independent things: the uniform contrary teaching of the art of record, set out at (e) above, and the specification's own qualification of the very sentence the claims track, set out at (d). The burden of showing that the specification is enabling has accordingly shifted to applicant. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561- 62 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants may do any of the following:
1. Point to disclosure in the application as filed that provides the necessary direction.
2. Submit evidence under 37 CFR 1.132.
3. Amend the claims to recite the chemistry and conditions under which the relation is obtained.
4. Cancel the claims.
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 1-9 and 21-26 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.
Each of claims 1 and 21 introduces "a thermal conductor material film" and then recites "forming a material layer on the thermal conductor material layer." There is no antecedent basis in either claim for "the thermal conductor material layer." The curative amendment is "film" for "layer." For purposes of examination on the prior art the phrase is interpreted as "the thermal conductor material film," which is the only reading the specification supports ([0086]).
Claim 26 recites "a lower etching rate to the diamond-like carbon material layer." Claim 26 depends on claim 25, which depends on claim 21. Neither claim 25 nor claim 21 recites a diamond-like carbon material layer: claim 21 recites only "a material layer ... wherein the material layer has a hardness smaller than that of the thermal conductor material film," and claim 25 recites "the planarized material layer." There is no antecedent basis for "the diamond-like carbon material layer." The diamond-like carbon material is introduced in claim 22, which is claim 26's sibling and not its ancestor. Two curative amendments are available, and applicants are invited to elect between them: amend claim 26 to depend on claim 22 (or on a claim depending from claim 22), or recite the material positively in claim 26.
Claims that depend on claims 1, 21, and/or 26 inherit the same issues and are each rejected on the same basis.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer-335 (US # 20030062335).
Regarding Claim 1, Brewer-335 teaches a fabrication method, comprising:
providing a base structure (substrate 9; see [008] and Fig. 4; see also [0001] describing a silica substrate);
forming a thermal conductor material film (CVD diamond film on silica substrate; see [0001, 3]) on the base structure, wherein the thermal conductor material film is formed with a gritty surface with a first surface roughness (peaks and valleys; [0003, 48]);
forming a material layer (SiO2 coating 10; [0016, 48]) on the thermal conductor material layer and covering the gritty surface (shown in Figs. 4 and 6), wherein the material layer has a hardness smaller than that of the thermal conductor material film (diamond is Mohs 10, SiO2 is around Mohs 5), and the material layer includes a flattening dielectric layer or a carbon-based material layer ([0016-17]);
performing a first planarization process (CMP; [0032, 48]) to partially remove the material layer to form a planarized material layer with a planarized surface, and portions of the thermal conductor material film (peaks) are partially exposed from the planarized surface ([0033, 48, 63]); and
performing an etching process (dry etching step [0018], Table 1, [0048]) to etch the thermal conductor material film by removing the exposed portions of the thermal conductor material film ([0048]) to form a composite thermal conductor material film ([0018] describes a composite oxide-diamond surface) with a second surface roughness (smoothing means that it is a lesser roughness), wherein the composite thermal conductor material film includes the etched thermal conductor material film and the remained planarized material layer (see Fig. 6 showing flattened peaks),
Although Brewer-335 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method wherein the second surface roughness is reduced by about half of the first surface roughness.
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, Brewer-335 itself treats the degree of roughness reduction as the controlled output of its process. At the conclusion of each dry etching step the process substrate surface is inspected by customary optical and mechanical profilometry so as to achieve a roughness that is set by the intended application ([0023]); if the surface is not sufficiently smooth after a cycle, the coating, polishing and etching steps are repeated until a sufficiently smooth surface is achieved ([0021], [0022], [0064]); and within a cycle the height of the diamond peaks left standing above the coating is held to a chosen value, not more than about 0.5 μm and could be as little as 0.1 μm, so that the subsequent etch flattens them flush with the coating ([0028]). The roughness remaining after a given cycle is therefore a result-effective variable whose value Brewer-335 teaches the artisan to select by choosing the etch depth and the number of cycles. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that operating the planarize-and-etch cycle of Brewer-335 so that the composite surface roughness after one cycle is about half the starting roughness would be obvious. Specifically, the modification would be to terminate the etch of Brewer-335 at the point where the second surface roughness is reduced by about half of the first surface roughness, which is one point within the range of partial reductions that Brewer-335 already contemplates when it describes a first cycle leaving the roughness considerably less than the original and further cycles as optional ([0064]). The rationale is that the discovery of an optimum or workable value of a variable the prior art recognizes as result-effective is not inventive, MPEP 2144.05(II), and the passage at [0023] identifies the target roughness as set by the downstream application, so an application needing only a halving of roughness would be met by stopping there. The applicant's own specification confirms that the value is one of several arbitrary stopping points (at least one third or more, about half, about one third (or lower); application [0027]) rather than a critical value.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer-335 (US # 20030062335) in view of Yu-201 (US # 20210159201).
Regarding Claim 7, Brewer-335 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the thermal conductor material film includes diamond ([0001, 3]).
Although Brewer-335 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the material layer includes a carbon-based material layer formed of a diamond-like carbon material.
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, Yu-201 uses diamond-like carbon as a dielectric layer in semiconductor fabrication and states its thermal conductivity: The bonding dielectric layer 130 may be a diamond like carbon (DLC) layer or other suitable dielectric layers having thermal conductivity greater than about 1.4 W/mK. For example, the thermal conductivity of the DLC layer 130 is greater than 20 W/mK (Yu-201 [0016]). The same paragraph's opening sentence identifies the property for which such a layer is chosen: it may be a dielectric layer having thermal conductivity greater than that of silicon dioxide formed by any growth or deposition process (Yu-201 [0016]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that substituting the diamond-like carbon dielectric of Yu-201 for the silica coating of Brewer-335 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification would be to deposit, as the coating 10 of Brewer-335's coat-polish-etch sequence, a diamond-like carbon layer of thermal conductivity greater than 20 W/mK (Yu-201 [0016]) in place of the SiO2 coating of Brewer-335 [0016) and [0048], the remainder of the sequence being unchanged.
The rationale has two parts, and both rest on Brewer-335's own requirements for its coating together with the single fact taken from Yu-201. First, Brewer-335 requires that the coating a) function as a dielectric ([0017]) and b) be removed by mechanical polishing at a rate at which the substrate is subject to reduction of thickness ([0017]), a rate that must be greater ([0032]), which Brewer-335 grounds in the dissimilarities in hardness of the ... coating material and the underlying diamond substrate ([0048]). A diamond-like carbon layer is a dielectric layer (Yu-201 [0016]), which satisfies (a). As to (b), the substrate here is diamond, which Brewer-335 itself calls the hardest known material ([0003]); diamond-like carbon is an amorphous carbon material and is not diamond, so the hardness dissimilarity Brewer-335 relies on runs in the direction Brewer-335 requires. The hardness relation is thus established from the primary reference's own characterization of its substrate, and no second secondary reference is needed for it. The examiner records that no reference of record reports a measured polish-rate ratio of diamond-like carbon to crystalline diamond.
Second, the substitution serves the purpose/or which Brewer-335 smooths diamond in the first place. Brewer-335 smooths diamond films because diamond films are of particular value, such as for optical purposes or for integrated circuits ([0003]), and the coating it leaves behind remains part of the finished composite surface ([0018], [0028]). Silica is the lowest-conductivity dielectric available for that remainder; Yu-201 identifies diamond-like carbon as a dielectric of thermal conductivity greater than 20 W/mK and selects such materials precisely because their conductivity exceeds that of silicon dioxide (Yu-201 [001 6]). Replacing the silica remainder with a diamond-like carbon remainder therefore raises the thermal conductivity of the composite surface without disturbing any step of Brewer-335's process. This is the substitution of one known dielectric coating for another to obtain a predictable result, MPEP 2 l 43(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 8, Brewer-335 teaches the method of claim 7, wherein performing an etching process to etch the thermal conductor material film also etches the planarized material layer ([0034, 48]).
Claims 16, 19, 20-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-201 (US # 20210159201) in view of Brewer-335 (US # 20030062335) and Chen-074 (US
# 20220278074).
Regarding Claim 16, Yu-201 teaches a method for forming stacking structures, comprising:
providing a first structure (W1 [0015]) having a first substrate (110; [0015]), wherein the first structure includes first dies in a wafer form ([0060]);
forming a first dielectric layer (bonding dielectric layer 130) over the first substrate (110) and forming first bonding structures (142, 144; see Fig. 4) in the first dielectric layer (shown embedded),
providing a second structure (the second of the two wafers bonded in the wafer to wafer alternative; Yu-201 labels both wafers W1 and wafer to wafer bonding, stated in contrast to the chip to wafer alternative of the same paragraph, necessarily requires two wafers; Yu-201 [0060]) having a second substrate, (the semiconductor substrate 110 of that second wafer; the top tier dies are fabricated by the processes illustrated in Fig. 1 through Fig. 5, and Fig. 1 provides wafer W1 with semiconductor substrate 110; Yu-201 [0060], [0015]) wherein the second structure includes second dies in a wafer form (the top tier semiconductor die 100A1 in the semiconductor wafer W1, that wafer being one including semiconductor dies 100A arranged in array; Yu-201 [0060], [0015]);
forming a second dielectric layer (130/130a; same process as the first wafer W1) over the second substrate and forming second bonding structures (142, 144; see Fig. 4) in the second dielectric layer;
bonding the first structure with the second structure by bonding the first and second dielectric layers and bonding the first and second bonding structures ([0060] describes bonding wafer-to-wafer); and
Although Yu-201 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method comprising forming the first dielectric layer wherein forming the first dielectric layer includes forming a composite thermal conductor material film having a diamond containing surface; aligning the second bonding structures with the first bonding structures; and performing a singulation process to form individual stacking structures.
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, Brewer-335 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches the film the limitation recites: a CVD diamond film whose as-grown surface has peaks and valleys of about 30 microns (Brewer-335 [0003]) is coated with a dielectric (Brewer-335 [0016, l7]), the coating is polished to the diamond peaks (Brewer-335 [0033, 48, 63]), and the exposed peaks are etched in an oxygen-containing plasma until flush or smooth with the coating surface (Brewer-335 [0018, 26-28, 53]), leaving, at the intermediate state of Brewer-335 [0028, 53] (Fig. 6), the surface Brewer-335 [0018] describes as the composite oxide-diamond surface: a flat surface at which diamond and the remaining dielectric coating are both present.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the bonding dielectric layer 130 of Yu-201 with the composite diamond-and-dielectric film of Brewer-335 would have been obvious. Specifically, the modification would be to form layer 130 by growing a CVD diamond film over interconnect structure 120 and running Brewer-335's sequence on it, so that the surface presented for bonding is the composite oxide-diamond surface (Brewer-335 [0018]), flattened peaks flush with the coating surface (Brewer-335 [0028, 53])}, into which the openings 132 and trenches 134 are then patterned and the bonding conductors 142 and 144 formed as Yu-201 already does (Yu-201 [0017, 19, 21]). The rationale is that the modification improves Yu-201's own invention in the way Yu-201 itself asks for: Yu-201 selects its bonding dielectric for thermal conductivity, greater than that of silicon dioxide, and expressly invites other suitable dielectric layers having thermal conductivity greater than about 1.4 W/mK (Yu-201 [0016]); it states the purpose. that the patterned bonding dielectric layers of the two tiers provide a bonding interface with good thermal conductivity to dissipate heat effectively so that the hot spot issue ... may be solved (Yu-201 [0060]); and a surface presenting CVD diamond beside a dielectric is a dielectric surface of thermal conductivity far above that bar. Diamond is well known as an electrically insulating material of exceptionally high thermal conductivity, greater than that of silicon dioxide and of diamond-like carbon. Brewer-335's sequence also delivers what Yu-20l's bond contemplates: a leveled bonding surface (Yu-201 [0019]) which an as-grown diamond film with 30-micron peaks could not provide, and a dielectric phase remaining at the surface (Brewer-335 [0017, 18, 28]) for the dielectric-to-dielectric half of Yu-201's bonding interface (Yu-201 [0060]). Nothing in the embodiment of Yu-201 relied on (Figs. 1 to 6) depends on the bonding dielectric being diamond-like carbon in particular, and Yu-201's other embodiments, whose bonding structures present silicon dioxide or silicon nitride over the diamond-like carbon (Yu-201 [0037-38, 49, 50]), confirm that the material presented at the bonding surface is a design choice in Yu-201: and diamond is etchable by the oxygen dry etch Brewer-335 already uses on it (Brewer-335 [0018, 27]), masked oxygen etching of diamond being acknowledged as known in Brewer-335's own background ([0006]), so the openings and trenches can be formed and the principle of operation of Yu-201 is unchanged.
Furthermore, a second prior art reference, Chin-074 teaches Chen-074 is in the same field, wafer-on-wafer bonding of die-bearing wafers at a hybrid bonding interface, and it teaches both steps. Each of its wafers carries an array of dies separated by dicing lanes designated for singulating the dies ... in a subsequent process (wafer 100, dies 112, dicing lanes 111; Chen-074 [0018]; Fig. 1; wafer 200, dies 212, dicing lanes 211; Chen-074 [0042]; Fig. 11). Wafer 200 is flipped over and bonded to the wafer 100 by hybrid bonding, in which the bonding layers are fused together by fusion bonding and the bond pad 255 is directly bonded together to the via 120 by a direct metal to metal bond, hybrid bonding being defined as direct metal-to-metal bonding of the metal features in a first device to metal features in a second device as well as fusion bonding (or dielectric-to-dielectric bonding) of insulating materials in the first device to insulating materials in the second device (Chen-074 [0055]; Fig. 20a). The aligning step is taught at [0056] and the singulation step is taught at [0080-82].
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the wafer-to-wafer bonding process of Yu-201 with the aligning step and the singulation step of Chen-074 would have been obvious. The rationale is that the two steps are what turns Yu-201's wafer-to-wafer branch into the product Yu-201 says it provides: Yu-201 contemplates metal-to-metal bonding interfaces at the bond between two lithographically patterned wafers and Chen-074 teaches that aligning the pads and bonding layers of the one wafer to those of the other before the anneal is how the direct metal-to-metal and dielectric-to-dielectric bonds of a hybrid bond are obtained; and Yu-201's waler-to-wafer branch bonds two whole wafers each bearing an array of dies and Chen-074 teaches that sawing the bonded stack through the dicing lanes of its wafers is how individual packages are obtained from a bonded wafer stack. Both are the application of known techniques of the same kind of wafer-to-wafer bonding process with predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 19, Brewer-335, as applied to claim 16, further teaches the method wherein forming a composite thermal conductor material film includes forming a diamond film (the CVD diamond film ; Brewer-335 [0001, 3]) and forming a coating of SiO2 or silicon (Brewer-335 [0016, 48]) directly on and covering the diamond film (the coating is deposited on the rough diamond surface so as to fill the valleys and encapsulate the peaks; Brewer-335 [0009, 16, 31]).
Brewer-335 does not teach a carbon-based material layer (search as stated for claim 7). The difference is obvious on the two references already applied, and no reference is added. In the claim 16 combination the coating phase that remains in Brewer-335's composite surface (Brewer-335 [0018, 28]) becomes part of Yu-201's bonding dielectric: layer 130, and Yu-201 specifies diamond-like carbon, a carbon-based material, as that layer (Yu-201 [0016]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that depositing the coating of Brewer-335's sequence, as used in the claim 16 combination as a diamond like carbon (DLC) layer of thermal conductivity greater than 20 W/mK (Yu-201 [0016]) would have been obvious, because it keeps the dielectric-to-dielectric bonding surface the material Yu-201 specifies for it in the embodiment relied on (Yu-201 [0016, 60]) and raises the thermal conductivity of the remaining phase from that of silica to greater than 20 W/mK (Yu-201 [0016]), the good thermal conductivity on which Yu-201 rests its stated benefit (Yu-201 [0060]). The coating so chosen satisfies Brewer-335's own requirements, dielectric function (Brewer-333 [0017]) and a hardness below that of diamond: the hardest known material (Brewer-335 [0003, 48]), for the reasons given under claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, Brewer-335, as applied to claim 16 and 19, further teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising performing a planarization process to planarize the carbon-based material layer (chemical-mechanical polishing of the coating, which in the claim 19 combination is the diamond-like carbon layer; Brewer-335 [0032], [0048]) to expose portions of the diamond film (polishing until reaching the peaks of the rough surface and, for diamond, until resistance to said polishing is encountered on contacting the hard peaks; Brewer-335 [0033, 63]) and form the composite thermal conductor material film with the diamond containing surface (the composite surface with the diamond peaks flush with the coating; Brewer-335 [0018, 28, 53]) The relation that claim 20 requires, that the coating polishes away while the diamond beneath it does not, is Brewer-335's own requirement of its coating (Brewer-335 [0017, 48]) and follows from diamond being the hardest known material (Brewer-335 [0003]); no further reference is cited.
Regarding Claim 21, Yu-201 teaches a fabrication method ([0058, 60]), comprising:
providing a first bulk structure (semiconductor wafer W1; [0015]) having a first semiconductor substrate; (semiconductor substrate 110; [0015]);
forming a first dielectric layer (bonding dielectric layer 130, patterned into 130a; [0016, 17]) over the first semiconductor substrate (over interconnect structure 120, itself over substrate 110; [0015-16]) and forming first bonding structures (bonding conductors 142, 144; [0019]) in the first dielectric layer, (embedded in the patterned bonding dielectric layer 130a; [0021]) wherein forming the first dielectric layer comprises:
forming the bonding dielectric layer 130 as a diamond-like carbon layer, or as another dielectric of thermal conductivity greater than about 1.4 W/mK ([0016])
providing a second bulk structure (the second wafer of the wafer-to-wafer alternative, as set out for claim 16; [0060]) having a second semiconductor substrate; (the semiconductor substrate 110 of that wafer, [0060, 15]);
forming a second dielectric layer over the second semiconductor substrate and forming second bonding structures in the second dielectric layer; (both tiers fabricated by the processes illustrated in Fig. 1 through Fig. 5; [0060, 16, 21]); and
bonding the first bulk structure with the second bulk structure by bonding the first and second dielectric layers and bonding the first and second bonding structures; (wafer-to-wafer bonding at an interface that may include dielectric-to-dielectric bonding interfaces and metal-to-metal bonding interfaces; [0060]).
Although Yu-201 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method comprising forming a thermal conductor material film over the first semiconductor substrate, wherein the thermal conductor material film is formed of crystalline diamond with a base portion and grainy portions and having a gritty surface; forming a material layer on the thermal conductor material layer and covering the gritty surface of the thermal conductor material layer, wherein the material layer has a hardness smaller than that of the thermal conductor material film; performing a planarization process to partially remove the material layer to form a planarized material layer with a planarized surface, and the grainy portions of the thermal conductor material film are partially exposed from the planarized surface; performing an etching process to etch the thermal conductor material film by removing the exposed grainy portions of the thermal conductor material film to form a composite thermal conductor material film with a diamond containing surface, wherein the composite thermal conductor material film includes the etched thermal conductor material film and the remained planarized material layer; and performing an etching process to etch the thermal conductor material film by removing the exposed grainy portions of the thermal conductor material film to form a composite thermal conductor material film with a diamond containing surface, wherein the composite thermal conductor material film includes the etched thermal conductor material film and the remained planarized material layer; aligning the second bonding structures with the first bonding structures; and performing a singulation process cutting through the first and second bulk structures.
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, Brewer-335 teaches each sub-step in terms: a CVD diamond film of polycrystalline diamond grains ( [0014]) whose grains form a rough surface of peaks 11 and valleys 12 over the body of the film ([0003, 48]; Fig. 4), which is the base portion, grainy portions and gritty surface; a coating of SiO2 or silicon softer than the diamond beneath it ([0048, 17]: diamond being the hardest known material, [0003]), deposited to fill the valleys and encapsulate the peaks ([0009, 16, 31]); polishing of that coating to the diamond peaks until resistance is encountered ([0033, 48, 63]), and an oxygen dry etch restricted to the exposed peaks ( [0018, 27, 48]) that flattens them flush or smooth with the coating surface ([0028, 53]; Fig. 6), forming, at the intermediate state of Brewer-335 [0028, 53], the surface described as 'the composite oxide-diamond surface, in which the etched diamond and the remaining coating are both present ([0018]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the bonding dielectric layer 130 of Yu-201 by Brewer-33S's sequence, that is, growing a CVD crystalline diamond film over the interconnect structure of Yu-201 's wafer, coating its gritty surface with a softer dielectric, polishing the coating back until the diamond grains are exposed, and oxygen-etching the exposed grains flush with the remaining coating ([0003, 14-18, 27-28, 31-33, 48, 53, 63]) in place of depositing layer 130 as a single diamond-like carbon film, would have been obvious. The rationale is the one given under claim 16 and is not repeated.
Similarly, the limitations regarding the aligning of the bonding structures and performing a singulation are essentially the same as claim 16 (using Chen-074). For essentially the same reasons, the claimed steps of claim 21 would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 22, Brewer-335, as applied to claim 16, further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the material layer is formed conformally on and over the gritty surface of the thermal conductor material film (the deposition of a conformal coating 10 of SiO2 on the rough diamond surface (peaks 11 and valleys 12) of substrate 9; [0048]),
Brewer-335 does not teach a diamond-like carbon material by deposition.
Yu-201 states that its bonding dielectric layer 130 may be a dielectric layer formed by any growth or deposition process and may be a diamond like carbon (DLC) layer (Yu-201 [0016], two sentences of one paragraph addressed to the same layer).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that depositing the conformal coating of Brewer-335, as used in the claim 21 combination, as a diamond like carbon (DLC) layer formed by any growth or deposition process (Yu-201 [0016]) would have been obvious, for the reason given under claim 19.
Regarding Claim 25, Brewer-335, as applied to claim 21, further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein performing an etching process to etch the thermal conductor material film simultaneously etches and partial1y removes the planarized material layer. (both the substrate and the adjacent coating are simultaneously etched in a continuous fashion throughout the process; [0034]; reduced at substantially the same rate; [0020, 48]; the removal is partial at the conclusion of an etching step taken before the coating is exhausted, Brewer-335 describes protruding coating portions of the substrate remaining after the dry etching step (c); [0022]; and runs the process in cycles with inspection at the conclusion of the first and any subsequent dry etching steps (c); [0023). Reconciled with claim 21: the first-embodiment simultaneous etch ([0022, 34]), stopped at any point before the coating is exhausted, yields the composite state of Brewer-335 [0028, 53] relied on there.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-201 (US # 20210159201) in view of Brewer-335 (US # 20030062335), Chen-074 (US
# 20220278074), and further in view of Cohen-269 (US # 5679269).
Regarding Claim 23, Yu-201 fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 22, wherein the diamond-like carbon material is an amorphous carbon material including fluorine atoms, chlorine atoms, hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms or nitrogen atoms. And Brewer-335 does not reach diamond-like carbon at all.
Cohen-269 is in the same field, diamond-like carbon used in place of a silicon dioxide or a polymeric film as a low dielectric constant interlevel insulator for back end contact for FET and CMOS applications (col. 3, ll. 42 to 48), and it teaches that the diamond-like carbon material is selected from the group consisting of hydrogenated amorphous carbon, amorphous carbon, amorphous diamond, fluorinated hydrogenated amorphous carbon, fluorinated amorphous carbon and fluorinated amorphous diamond (col. 3, II is in the same field, diamond-like carbon used in place of a silicon dioxide or a polymeric film as a low dielectric constant interlevel insulator for back end contact for FET and CMOS applications (col. 3, 11. 42 to 48), and it teaches that the diamond-like carbon material is selected from the group consisting of hydrogenated amorphous carbon, amorphous carbon, amorphous diamond, fluorinated hydrogenated amorphous carbon, fluorinated amorphous carbon and fluorinated amorphous diamond (col. 3, ll. 48-53).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the diamond-like carbon layer of Yu-201 as modified by Brewer-335 as hydrogenated amorphous carbon, or fluorinated amorphous carbon (Cohen-269 col. 3, II. 48 to 53) would have been obvious, because Cohen-269 stares that group as the diamond-like carbon materials from which the artisan selects, when using diamond-like carbon as a semiconductor dielectric. which is the use Yu-201 makes of it (Yu-201 [0016J); hydrogenated amorphous carbon is an amorphous carbon material including hydrogen atoms and fluorinated amorphous carbon is one including fluorine atoms, each being one of the alternatives claim 23 recite, and the claim requires only one. The selection of a member of a small, expressly enumerated group of art-recognized materials for its art recognized use is not inventive, MPEP 2143(l)(B), MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-201 (US # 20210159201) in view of Brewer-335 (US # 20030062335), Chen-074 (US
# 20220278074), and James-634 (US # 6454634).
Regarding Claim 24, Brewer-335, as applied to claim 21, further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the planarization process is performed to remove the material layer until the underlying gritty surface is revealed and the grainy portions are exposed, (polishing until reaching the peaks of the rough surface and, for diamond until resistance to said polishing is encountered on contacting the hard peaks; [0033]: polishing is immediately halted as soon as contact is achieved with the peaks of the substrate; [0063])
Yu-201 as modified by Brewer-335 does not teach using a polishing pad with a Shore D hardness larger than 50 and a down force larger than 2 pounds per square inch. Yu-201 names chemical mechanical polishing as one of its grinding options (Yu-201 [0019]) and states no pad or down force for it. The prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders that difference obvious, as explained below.
James-634 is in the same field, polishing pads for the chemical-mechanical planarization of a semiconductor surface, and it teaches a polishing layer of hardness 40-70 Shore D, preferably 45-65 Shore D and most preferably 55-63 Shore D (col. 11, ll. 13-21; col. 12, l. 37), polishing at a down-force of 4 psi (col. 8, ll. 57-59), and it teaches why: a softer pad has lower stiffness, which can reduce the pad's planarization efficiency which is generally undesirable (James-634 col. 4, II. 39-42), whereas a suitably high hardness with an acceptably high stiffness delivers excellent planarization efficiency (col. 4, ll. 47-5 l) and [t]he high pad stiffness yields wafers that have good planarity (col. 5, 11. 39-40).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that carrying out the chemical-mechanical polish of Brewer-335, as used in the claim 21 combination, with a polishing layer of 55-63 Shore D (James-634 col. 11, ll. 13-21) at a down-force of 4 psi (James-634 col. 8, 11. 57 to 59) would have been obvious. The reason is an improvement to Yu-201's own bonding surface: Yu-201 contemplates a bonding surface at which the tops of the bonding conductors and the top surface of the patterned bonding dielectric layer are substantially leveled and attributes departures from level to grinding selectivity (Yu-201 [0019]); the grinding there is of the copper layer 140, and the leveled surface is the bonding surface it leaves, so planarity of the surface to be bonded is an objective of Yu-201's process generally and not of that step alone), and James-634 identifies high pad hardness and stiffness as the pad properties that yield good planarity and low stiffness as what degrades planarization efficiency (James-634 col. 4, 11. 39-51; col. 5. II. 39 or 40); a hard, stiff pad in James-634's most preferred range, at the down force James-634 exemplifies, is therefore the pad an artisan seeking Yu-201's leveled bonding surface would select for the chemical-mechanical polish in the modified process. James-634 relies on nothing from Brewer-335; Brewer-335 is named only to identify which polish in the mollified process the pad is used for. The applicant's specification describes the recited values as a high throughput process (application [0021, 40]) and asserts no criticality for either.
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