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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13 and 19-25 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the three-dimensional space extending through the IC die (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 9 and 24-25 are 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.
Claims 9 and 24-25 all recite the limitation “the IC die". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An IC device is broader than an IC die, and can be an IC package.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al., U.S. Lat. 7,030,772, hereafter Lee, in view of Mieher et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,486,954, hereafter Mieher.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (Figs 1-9) an integrated circuit (IC) device (title), comprising:
an array comprising rows and columns of conductive interconnect pads [108]; and
at least one alignment fiducial region distinct from the array [224], [228] (see, e.g., Fig. 7) and comprising a fiducial pattern [224], [228].
Lee fails to explicitly disclose at least one optical alignment fiducial region distinct from the array
and comprising a fiducial pattern, wherein the fiducial pattern comprises a first group of pads contiguous to a second group of pads, wherein a width of a space between nearest pads of the first and second groups is wider than the spaces between pads within each group when measured in a same dimension.
However, Mieher discloses (e.g., Fig. 7) at least one optical alignment fiducial region comprising a fiducial pattern (alignment marks [780],[790] ), wherein the fiducial pattern comprises a first group of pads contiguous to a second group of pads (the groups can be neighboring gratings [780], [790] with substructures, pads, Col. 5, lines 18-28) wherein a width of a space between nearest pads of the first and second groups is wider than the spaces between pads within each group when measured in a same dimension.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use fiducials of Mieher for alignment because Mieher teaches (Col. 2, lines 9- 14) that this properly aligns integrated circuits within the package.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses (Col. 5, lines 18-27) wherein the fiducial pattern comprises having the pads within the groups spaced apart from each other up to a maximum amount so that the groups appear as a single continuous shape in an image and having the groups spaced apart from each other down to a minimum amount so that the groups appear segmented from each other in the image.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses (Col. 4, lines 12-21, Col. 5, lines 18-27, Mieher teaches that even though the alignment mark pads or sub-structures cannot be resolved by visible or NIR lithography, more precise alignment can be obtained using electron microscope) wherein the width of the space between pads within at least one of the groups is less than a diffraction-limited resolution of a light-based imaging device to be used to capture an image of the fiducial pattern (Col. 6, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses wherein the width of the space between the groups is at least a diffraction-limited resolution of a visible or NIR light wavelength imaging device to be used to capture an image of the fiducial pattern (Col. 7, line 66 – Col. 8, line 21, the wavelength of visible or NIR light determines the resolution, only structures having 1 micron pitch or more can be resolved).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses (Fig. 7) wherein the fiducial region comprises a fiducial pitch between consecutive pads across the space between the first and second groups. Lee in view of Mieher fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fiducial pitch is at least a length of a diffraction-limited resolution of a light-based imaging device plus the width of one of the pads, and wherein a first pitch between pads within the groups is less than the diffraction-limited resolution plus the width of one of the pads.
However, this range can be obtained by effective optimization since diffraction-limited resolution is related to the pitch of the gratings and the wavelength of light. (MPEP, 2144.05. II.A, and case law therein)
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses (e. g., Fig. 7) wherein the fiducial region has rows and columns of pads continued from the array with the fiducial pitch and spaces between groups being formed by at least part of a single column of pads or part of a single row of pads or both being omitted within the fiducial region.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses (e.g., Fig. 7) wherein a fiducial region [224], [228] replaces only two diagonally opposite corners or opposite side portions of the array.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Lee in view of Mieher fails to explicitly disclose comprising a margin free of pads between the at least one fiducial region and the array, wherein the margin comprises a width at least as wide as a diffraction-limited resolution of the optical system to be used to capture an image of the fiducial pattern.
However, such margin is well known in the PCB fiducials art as a keep-out zone. The claim states that the margin has to be wide enough for the optical system to be able to capture the fiducial. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize for the fiducial pattern so that the optical system can resolve and capture the image of the fiducial pattern. Routine optimization through experimentation is normally considered obvious, and the purpose of the invention is for the fiducial to be resolved by the optical system (MPEP, 2144.05.II.A).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses (Figs 1-9) A system comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) device (title), comprising:
an array comprising rows and columns of conductive interconnect pads [108]; and
at least one alignment fiducial region distinct from the array [224], [228] (see, e.g., Fig. 7) and comprising a fiducial pattern [224], [228].
Lee fails to explicitly disclose at least one optical alignment fiducial region distinct from the array
and comprising a fiducial pattern, wherein the fiducial pattern comprises a first array of pads contiguous to a second array of pads, wherein nearest pads of the first and second array define a space between the first and second arrays and are a fiducial pitch apart along a dimension, wherein a width of the space is wider than spaces between pads within the first and second arrays and along the dimension.
However, Mieher discloses (e.g., Fig. 7) at least one optical alignment fiducial region distinct from the array and comprising a fiducial pattern, wherein the fiducial pattern comprises a first array of pads [780],[790] contiguous to a second array of pads [780],[790], wherein nearest pads of the first and second array define a space between the first and second arrays (e.g., in [780] and are a fiducial pitch apart along a dimension (horizontal), wherein a width of the space is wider than spaces between pads within the first and second arrays and along the dimension [horizontal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use fiducials of Mieher for alignment because Mieher teaches (Col. 2, lines 9- 14) that this properly aligns integrated circuits within the package.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses (Col. 4, lines 12-22, 1 micrometer grating corresponds to a near infrared light)
wherein the width of the space is at least partly based on a numerical aperture value of a visible or NIR light wavelength imaging device to be used to detect the fiducial pattern.
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. The limitation “wherein the spacing between the first and second arrays is at least 1.1 micrometers wide” is obvious over Mieher because Mieher discloses (Col. 4, lines 12-22) a 1 micrometer grating corresponds to a near infrared light. A close rang is considered obvious (MPEP, 2144.05.I)
Regarding claim 22, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses (Col. 4, lines 12-22) wherein the spacing between the first and second arrays is in a range of 400 nanometers to 6 micrometers wide depending on a numerical aperture value of a light-based imaging device to be used to detect the fiducial pattern.
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Mieher further discloses wherein the spacing between the first and second arrays and the spacing between pads within the first and second array is at least partly based on a diffraction-limited resolution of a light-based imaging device to be used to detect the fiducial pattern (Col. 7, line 66 – Col. 8, line 21, the wavelength of visible or NIR light determines the resolution, only structures having 1 micron pitch or more can be resolved).
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al., U.S. Lat. 7,030,772, hereafter Lee, in view of Mieher et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,486,954, hereafter Mieher, and further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Lee further discloses wherein the IC die and is free of any fiducial metal keep-out-zone.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one fiducial region is formed as a three-dimensional space extending through the IC die
However, the Examiner takes an Official Notice that through holes are known as excellent fiducials for an IC die. As best the Examiner can interpret, a through hole can be a three-dimensional space extending through the IC die, so the limitation “wherein the at least one fiducial region is formed as a three-dimensional space extending through the IC die” is met.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use a three-dimensional space (a through-hole) instead of the marks of Lee because it improves alignment.
Regarding claim 24, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Lee in view of Mieher fails to explicitly disclose wherein the IC die has four of the fiducial regions each replacing a corner of the array and at least one metallization layer having metal extending under each fiducial region.
However, the Examiner takes an Official Notice that a fiducial in 4 corners with metallization layer is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective date of the instant application to place fiducial in every corner and connect to metallization layer because this represents an obvious variation of the embodiments of Lee and will improve alignment accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Mieher discloses everything as applied above. Lee in view of Mieher fails to explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the array is a first array bonded to a second array of an electronic device facing the integrated circuit device, wherein one of the first or second arrays comprises a plurality of alignment monitoring pads spaced from each other within the array or fiducial region or both, and each monitoring pad having a bonding interface surface with a surface area or shape different than that of the other monitoring pads.
Claims 11-13 are objected to because they depend on and contain all limitations of claim 10
Claim 25 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 25, Lee in view of Mieher fails to disclose or make obvious comprising an electronic device having a fiducial region to bond to the fiducial region of the IC die; and an antenna coil fiducial in at least one of the fiducial regions and being disposed contiguous to at least one of the first and second pad arrays in the fiducial region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893