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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot. Applicants’ amendments of these claims required the shift in grounds of rejection. As such, this action is hereby made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0125407) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0069520)
Regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 1.
Schulze Fig. 1
An integrated circuit (IC), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate(1) having a first and second sides, the first aside including a recess(1 having a top and bottom, the top, including recess 23)
an interconnect region (1 bottom)on the second side of the semiconductor substrate(1 bottom having interconnect for connecting to D); and
Schulze does not discloses:
The interconnect region including layers of dielectric material and one or more levels of metal linesa device on the second side of the semiconductor substrate the device overlapping at least part of the recess. .
The device having a quality factor
In related art, Lee discloses:
The interconnect region including layers of dielectric material(166) and one or more levels of metal lines(168)
Lee discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the back side contact structure. The use of the back side contract structure provides the benefit of allowing the device to be made smaller and more electrically dense. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Schulze to include the one or mor levels of metal lines as taught by Lee for the obvious benefit.
However, Schulze at [0037] and fig. 5 discloses that D is formed on the bottom of 1 the device (see D), and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form or mount a device on the surface of the device for the obvious benefit of incorporating the semiconductor substrate into a desired device and to make the devices more dense. The device may overlap at least a port of the recess 23 as a matter of design choice for the obvious benefit of making the device fit a desired application or to make it more dense. Further, the device may include a quality factor, or not include a quality factor. That is, there are a finite number of possible solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, the device may be included of Schulze may include a quality factor for the obvious benefit of allowing the device of Schulze to be used with various applications and devices. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Thus, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0125407) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0069520) further in view of Hung (U.S. Patent Application publication No. 2008/0217659)
Regarding claim 7. Schulze discloses all of the features of claim 1. Schulze does not disclose: The IC of claim 1, wherein the device includes a passive component including at least one of a capacitor, inductor, or a transformer. In related art, Hung discloses: The IC of claim 1, wherein the device includes a passive component over the second surface, the passive component including at least one of a capacitor, inductor, or a transformer.(See fig. 2, 170, and [0140])
Hung discloses that the passive device provides the benefit of forming a good dense pixel. As such, it would have been obvious to form the passive device of Hung on in the device of Schulze. Thus, the features of claim 7 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0217659).
Regarding claim 8 An integrated circuit (IC), comprising:
Hung discloses: Fig. 2
a semiconductor substrate (130)having a first surface(top), and a second surface(130 bottom) opposite the first surface,
A trench extending (140 extending from 130)from the first surface of the semiconductor substrate(130);
a dielectric material(140 having dielectric STI, [0013] ) in the trench;
and a device(170 over 140) over the second surface the trench(140).
Hung does not specifically depict “a device over the second surface and overlapping with at least part of the trench”, or that the device includes a quality factor.
However, Hung discloses that the square box that is depicted as 170, is a gate electrode of a transfer gate. However, Hung discloses that the transfer gate 170 includes other features such as a source, drain which are not illustrated for sake of clarity. Further, the device may include a quality factor, or not include a quality factor. That is, there are a finite number of possible solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, the device may be included of Hung may include a quality factor for the obvious benefit of allowing the device of Hung to be used with various applications and devices. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Further, the trench is an STI and Pwell, and is there is no need to leave the trenches uncovered. As such, the transfer gate 170 could not cover the well, or could cover it. That is, there is a finite number of solutions, and the covering the Well would provide for a more dense device, which would affect the light detection of the device. There being a finite number of predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, and as such, the features of claim 8 would have been obvious to try to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP§ 2143. Furthermore, the device may be mounted on the bottom of 120, by simply moving the contact locations of 170, which has been held to be an obvious matter design choice. See MPEP 2144.01(VI)(C).
Regarding claims 9-11.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 8.
Hung does not disclose:
The IC of claim 8, wherein the semiconductor substrate includes a plurality of interconnected trenches including the trench, the plurality of trenches forming a grid pattern.
Regarding claim 10. The IC of claim 9, wherein the grid pattern includes orthogonally arranged trenches.
Regarding claim 11. The IC of claim 8, wherein the semiconductor substrate includes a plurality of interconnected trenches including the trench, the plurality of trenches including concentric trenches and radial trenches extending outward from a center of the concentric trenches and through the concentric trenches.
However, the recited features are a mere change in shape of the working parts, including the trenches which could be changed for the obvious benefit of changing the shape of the formed device for the benefit of using the device in a desired application, and there is no evidence that the claimed configuration is significant. Further, Hung discloses that formation of the devices in a grid [0012], and forming the 140 in a grid would allow the devices to be formed closer together. Thus, the features of claims 9-11 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. . See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 12.
Hung discloses: The IC of claim 8, wherein the device includes a at least one of a capacitor, an inductor, or a transformer.(It would have been obvious to place the device 170 on the back side of 120 for the obvious benefit of fitting the device into a desired application. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)
Regading claims 13-14.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 8.
Hung does not disclose:
The IC of claim 8, wherein the dielectric material includes a arylene compound.
Regarding claim 14The IC of claim 8, wherein the dielectric material includes fluorinated parylene compound.
Hung discloses:
(140, including dielectric, [0021], which includes a polymer [0025], it would have been obvious to select a known material for a known use, selecting a Parylene compound would have been known in view of Hung’s use of Parylene for its dielectric properties See MPEP 2144.04.) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Regarding claim 14 The IC of claim 8, wherein the dielectric polymer is a fluorinated parylene compound. (140, including dielectric, [0021], which includes a polymer [0025], it would have been obvious to select a known material for a known use, selecting a Parylene compound would have been known in view of Hung’s use of Parylene for its dielectric properties See MPEP 2144.04.) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
([0012], disclosing that the pixels are formed a grid array and that the, as such, it would have been obvious to form the grid in a grid for the obvious benefit of making the device more dense by using the STI to form the devices closer together. Thus, the features of claims 13-14 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. )
Claims 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0217659 in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0069520).
Regarding claim 31.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 8
Hung does not disclose:
The IC of claim 8, wherein the dielectric material is a first dielectric material, and the IC further comprises an interconnect region over the first surface, the interconnect region including layers of a second dielectric material and one or more levels of metal lines.
In related art, Lee discloses:
wherein the dielectric material is a first dielectric material, and the IC further comprises an interconnect region(166/168) over the first surface, the interconnect region including layers of a second dielectric material(166) and one or more levels of metal lines(168).
Lee discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the back side contact structure. The use of the back side contract structure provides the benefit of allowing the device to be made smaller and more electrically dense. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Hung to include the one or mor levels of metal lines as taught by Lee for the obvious benefit.
Claims 15-18 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0217659) in view of Schulze (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0125407).
Regarding claim 15. A method comprising:
Hung discloses Fig. 2:
forming a trench(140) on afirst surface of a semiconductor substrate(140 in top surface of 130) in which the semiconductor substrate has a second surface opposing the first surface (130 120 having bottom surface opposing top surface) ; and
forming a dielectric material in the trench and (Hung discloses that 140 is a dielectric [0013] [0033])
Further, Hung discloses that the square box that is depicted as 170, is a gate electrode of a transfer gate. However, Hung discloses that the transfer gate 170 includes other features such as a source, drain which are not illustrated for sake of clarity. Further, the trench is an STI and Pwell, and is there is no need to leave the trenches uncovered on either side of the device. As such, the transfer gate 170 could not cover the well, or could cover it. That is, there is a finite number of solutions, and the covering the Well would provide for a more dense device, which would affect the light detection of the device. Hung does not discloses that the device includes a Quality Factor.
Further, the device may include a quality factor, or not include a quality factor. That is, there are a finite number of possible solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, the device may be included of Hung may include a quality factor for the obvious benefit of allowing the device of Hung to be used with various applications and devices. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). There being a finite number of predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP§ 2143.
Hung does not discloses:
forming a device over the second surface or in the semiconductor substrate, in which the device overlaps at least partially with the trench However, Schulze at [0037] and fig. 5 discloses that electrodes are formed above the device (see G and S, and D below), and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form or mount a device on the surface of the device for the obvious benefit of incorporating the semiconductor substrate into a desired device and to make the devices more dense. FUther, the device may be mounted on the top or bottom of the device as a mere matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), where a placement of a contact was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. Because it would not modify the operation of the device. Here, the placement of the device below or above the substrate would not affect the operation of the device. As such, the features of these claims would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, the features of claims 15 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. )
Regarding claim 16-17.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 15.
Hung does not disclose:
The method of claim 15, further comprising forming a plurality of interconnected trenches including the trench in the first region according to a grid pattern.
Regarding claim 17. The method of claim 15, further comprising forming a plurality of interconnected trenches including the trench in the first region, wherein the plurality of trenches includes concentric trenches and radial trenches extending outward from a center of the concentric trenches and through the concentric trenches.
However, the recited features are a mere change in shape of the working parts, including the trenches which could be changed for the obvious benefit of changing the shape of the formed device for the benefit of using the device in a desired application, and there is no evidence that the claimed configuration is significant. Thus, the features of claim 16-17 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. . See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 18.
Hung discloses: The method of claim 15, wherein forming the device includes forming a passive component(170) including at least one of a capacitor, an inductor, or a transformer. ([0014])
Regarding claim 30.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 8.Hung does not disclose:
The IC of claim 8, wherein the dielectric material extends from the trench and covers the first surface.
In related art, Schulze discloses:
wherein the dielectric material extends from the trench and covers the first surface. (51 extending from 23 and covering top surface)
Schulze discloses that 51 provides the benefit of protection of the top of the device. And additional insulation as needed. As such, it would have been obvious ot provide insulation from the trench of Hung onto the top of the device. For the obvious benefit of providing protection and insulation to the device. And the features of claim 30 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of this application.
Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0217659) in view of Schulze (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0125407) further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0069520)
Regarding claim 32.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 15
Hung does not disclose:
The method of claim 15, wherein the dielectric material is a first dielectric material, and the method further comprises an interconnect region over the first surface, in which the interconnect region includes layers of a second dielectric material and one or more levels of metal lines.
In related art, Lee discloses:
wherein the dielectric material is a first dielectric material, and the IC further comprises an interconnect region(166/168) over the first surface, the interconnect region including layers of a second dielectric material(166) and one or more levels of metal lines(168).
Lee discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the back side contact structure. The use of the back side contract structure provides the benefit of allowing the device to be made smaller and more electrically dense. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Hung to include the one or mor levels of metal lines as taught by Lee for the obvious benefit.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0217659) in view of Schulze (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0125407) further in view of Hsu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0133837)
Regarding claim 19-20.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 15.
Hung does not discloses:
The method of claim 15, further comprising forming the dielectric material on the first surface.
Regarding claim 20. The method of claim 15, wherein forming the dielectric material includes forming a dielectric polymer include at least one of the parylene compound or a fluorinated parylene compound.
IN related art, Hsu discloses providing fluorinated Parylene via diffusion. It would have been obvious to modify Hung in view of Hsu for the obvious benefit of easing manufacturing and making make the device faster and or cheaper. As such, the features of claims 19 and 20 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0217659) in view of Schulze (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0125407) further in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0113037)
Regarding claims 21, 22 and .
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 15
Hung does not disclose:
The method of claim 20, further comprising baking the dielectric polymer.
Regarding claim 22 The method of claim 21, further comprising forming a barrier layer over the dielectric polymer after the baking.
In related art, Wu discloses:
The method of claim 20, further comprising baking the dielectric polymer.(Abstract)
Regarding claim 22 The method of claim 21, further comprising forming a barrier layer over the dielectric polymer after the baking. (Abstract. )
Wu discloses that the baking provides the benefit of providing enhanced adhesion between the dielectric layer and the barrier layer. As such, it would have been obvious to bake the device of Hung before depositing a barrier layer for the obvious benefit of enhancing the adhesion of the layers. Thus, the features of claims 21 and 22 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0217659) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0113037).
Regarding claim 29. The IC of claim 8, further comprising a barrier layer on the first surface covering the dielectric material.
Hung discloses all of the features of claim 8
Hung does not disclose:
The IC of claim 8, further comprising a barrier layer on the first surface covering the dielectric material.
in related art, Wu discloses:
further comprising a barrier layer on the first side covering the dielectric material..(Abstract)
Wu discloses that the baking provides the benefit of providing enhanced adhesion between the dielectric layer and the barrier layer. As such, it would have been obvious to bake the device of Hung before depositing a barrier layer for the obvious benefit of enhancing the adhesion of the layers. Thus, the features of claims 29 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 23-25 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
the prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
wherein the dielectric material is a first dielectric
material, and the recess includes a trench extending from the first side into the semiconductor substrate, and the IC includes a second dielectric material in the trench, as recited in claim 2.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898