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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites “the protrusion after being reduced is smaller than a height of the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer and greater than a height of the surface of the first test pad” in lines 12 and 13. However, claim 4 recites “the protrusion is eliminated after the laser annealing” in lines 1 and 2. The elimination of the protrusion results in claim 4 lacking all of the limitations of the independent claim, specifically that after the laser annealing the protrusion is greater than the height of the surface.
Claim 10 recites “after being reduced is smaller than a height of the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer and greater than a height of the surface of the first test pad” in lines 17 and 18. However, claim 11 recites “the protrusion is eliminated after the laser annealing” in lines 1 and 2. The elimination of the protrusion results in claim 4 lacking all of the limitations of the independent claim, specifically that after the laser annealing the protrusion is greater than the height of the surface.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purpose of examination of claims 4 and 11 the examiner will assume that the limitation “greater than a height of the surface of the first test pad except for the probe mark” refers to a transitional state during the laser annealing process and that the protrusion is eliminated after annealing.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagani (US 2013/0285056) in view of Tuckerman (US 4674176) in view of Liu (US 2005/0032229) in view of Chiba (US 7095045)
Regarding claim 1.
Pagani teaches a method of handling a test pad (10), comprising: providing a substrate (1) (paragraph 39), wherein a first insulating dielectric layer (4) (paragraph 39) and a first test pad (10) in the first insulating dielectric layer (4) are formed on the substrate (1) (paragraph 45), a surface of the first test pad (10) is at least partially exposed from the first insulating dielectric layer (4), and there is a probe mark (16) with a protrusion resulting from testing with probe tips (15) (fig 6) on the surface portion of the first test pad (10) exposed from the first insulating dielectric layer (4) (fig 7) (paragraph 70); and heating and melting the protrusion by annealing, thereby reducing a height of the protrusion (paragraph 70) (fig 8),
PNG
media_image1.png
319
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
during the annealing, a height of an upper surface of the protrusion after being reduced is smaller than a height of the first insulating dielectric layer (4) and greater than a height of the surface of the first pad (10) except for the probe mark (paragraph 70)
PNG
media_image2.png
312
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pagani does not teach using a laser to anneal the surface.
Tuckerman teaches heating and melting the surface by laser annealing, thereby reducing a height of a protrusion (planarizing the surface of a metal film) (column 3 lines 15-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use laser annealing to reduce the protrusions in order to heat the metal without substantially heating the surrounding dielectric and preclude unwanted reactions (Tuckerman column 2 lines 15-30).
Pagani does not teach that the protrusion protrudes above the dielectric.
Liu teaches wherein the protrusion (36) projects (h) from the surface of the first test pad (32) beyond a surface of the first insulating dielectric layer (34) (paragraph 25) (fig 3c), and an upper surface of a reduced protrusion (236) is smaller than the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer (234) and greater than the surface of the first test pad (232) except for the probe mark (236) (fig 4f) (paragraph 28).
PNG
media_image3.png
652
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a protrusion can protrude above surrounding dielectric because the size of the protrusion will depend on the force and duration of probe contact resulting in protrusions that can exceed the height of the surrounding dielectric based upon ordinary experimentation regarding the probing process, such protrusions are therefore known in the field of endeavor and therefore the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pagani does not teach that after the protrusion is reduced to smaller than a height of the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer and greater than a height of the surface of the first test pad except for the probe mark.
Chiba teaches a height of an upper surface of the protrusion (fig 11,12:240) after being reduced is smaller than a height of the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer (fig 11,12:230) and greater than a height of the surface of the first test pad (fig 11,12:230) except for the probe mark (fig 11,12[column 6 lines 10-20]).
PNG
media_image4.png
288
943
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a residual probe mark may remain on the surface of the probe pad during or after planarization in order to reduce processing time by planarizing the surface only as much as necessary,
Regarding claim 3.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba teaches the method of claim1.
Tuckerman teaches the laser annealing is accomplished with a laser beam, which is a monochromatic laser beam (krf excimer laser) or a superimposition of at least two monochromatic laser beams (column 6 lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 4.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba teaches the method of claim 1.
Pagani teaches the protrusion is eliminated after annealing (paragraph 70) (fig 7,8).
Tuckerman teaches laser annealing (column 3 lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 5.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba teaches the method of claim 1.
Pagani teaches the annealing enables the first test pad (10) to be heated at a temperature at least equal to a melting point of a material of the first test pad (paragraph 72).
Tuckerman teaches the laser annealing is accomplished with a laser beam with an energy density, which enables the first test pad to be heated at a temperature at least equal to a melting point of a material of the first test pad (column 5 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 8.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba teaches the method of claim 1.
Pagani teaches a temperature at a bottom side of the first test pad is not higher than 500° C (paragraph 46-55, 70).
Regarding claim 9.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba teaches the method of claim 1.
Pagani teaches after the protrusion is heated (1110, repair) and molten by annealing, cleaning (1140) the surface of the first test pad (fig 11) (paragraph 75).
Tuckerman teaches laser annealing (column 3 lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 15.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba teaches the method of claim 1.
Tuckerman teaches the laser annealing is accomplished by point-by-point scanning irradiation (column 5 lines 60-65), which does not affect any other region than the first test pad exposed from the first insulating dielectric layer (column 5 lines 1-10).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagani (US 2013/0285056) in view of Tuckerman (US 4674176) in view of Liu (US 2005/0032229) in view of Chiba (US 7095045) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Chen (US 2014/0217557)
Regarding claim 6
Pagani in view of Tuckermen in view of Liu in Chiba teaches claim 5 above
Pagani further teaches a pad comprising aluminum and laser annealed at 660 degrees (paragraph 12).
Pagani teaches a pad is aluminum, and wherein the heating temperature ranges from 600 °C to 700 °C (paragraph 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit the step of providing a low temperature surface layer and heat the pad to a higher temperature for repair in order to eliminate a step.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba does not teach the pad comprises copper
Chen teaches providing a test pad comprising copper and aluminum (paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alloy aluminum with copper in order to form a eutectic material with a decreased melting temperature so that it will repair with less annealing energy (Chen paragraph 27).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagani (US 2013/0285056) in view of Tuckerman (US 4674176) in view of Liu (US 2005/0032229) in view of Chiba (US 7095045) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ryu (US 2016/0049381)
Regarding claim 7
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba teaches the structure of claim 1 above.
Tuckerman teaches the laser annealing is accomplished by irradiation (column 5 lines 60-65), which does not affect any other region than the first test pad exposed from the first insulating dielectric layer (column 5 lines 1-10).
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba does not teach laser annealing comprises a continuous spot irradiation
Ryu teaches an annealing process accomplished wherein the laser annealing is accomplished by continuous spot irradiation (paragraph 13), which does not affect any other region (fig 2b)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use continuous spot irradiation in order to reduce peak laser energy density and inter pulse heat diffusion.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagani (US 2013/0285056) in view of Tuckerman (US 4674176) in view of Liu (US 2005/0032229) in view of Chiba (US 7095045) in view of Maruyama (US 2023/0117629)
Regarding claim 10.
Pagani teaches a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising: providing a substrate (1) (paragraph 39), wherein a first insulating dielectric layer (4) and a first test pad (10) in the first insulating dielectric layer (4) are formed on the substrate (1) (paragraph 45), a surface of the first test pad (10) is at least partially exposed from the first insulating dielectric layer (4), and there is a probe mark (16) with a protrusion resulting from testing with probe tips (15) on the surface portion of the first test pad (10) exposed from the first insulating dielectric layer (4) (fig 6,7) (paragraph 70);
PNG
media_image1.png
319
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
heating and melting the protrusion by annealing, thereby reducing a height of the protrusion (paragraph 70) (fig 8),
during the annealing, a height of an upper surface of the protrusion after being reduce is smaller than a height of the first insulating dielectric layer (4) and greater than a height of the surface of the first pad (10) except for the probe mark (paragraph 70) (fig 8)
PNG
media_image2.png
312
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pagani does not teach using a laser to anneal the surface.
Tuckerman teaches heating and melting the surface by laser annealing thereby reducing a height of a protrusion (planarizing the surface of a metal film) (column 3 lines 15-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use laser annealing to reduce the protrusions in order to heat the metal without substantially heating the surrounding dielectric and preclude unwanted reactions (Tuckerman column 2 lines 15-30).
Pagani does not teach that the protrusion protrudes above the dielectric.
Liu teaches the protrusion (36) projects (h) from the surface of the first test pad (32) beyond a surface of the first insulating dielectric layer (34) (paragraph 25) (fig 3c), and an upper surface of a reduced protrusion (236) is smaller than the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer (234) and greater than the surface of the first test pad (232) except for the probe mark (236) (fig 4f) (paragraph 28).
PNG
media_image3.png
652
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a protrusion can protrude above surrounding dielectric because the size of the protrusion will depend on the force and duration of probe contact resulting in protrusions that can exceed the height of the surrounding dielectric based upon ordinary experimentation regarding the probing process, such protrusions are therefore known in the field of endeavor and therefore the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Pagani does not teach that after the protrusion is reduced to smaller than a height of the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer and greater than a height of the surface of the first test pad except for the probe mark.
Chiba teaches a height of an upper surface of the protrusion (fig 11,12:240) after being reduced is smaller than a height of the surface of the first insulating dielectric layer (fig 11,12:230) and greater than a height of the surface of the first test pad (fig 11,12:230) except for the probe mark (fig 11,12[column 6 lines 10-20]).
PNG
media_image4.png
288
943
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a residual probe mark may remain on the surface of the probe pad during or after planarization in order to reduce processing time by planarizing the surface only as much as necessary,
Pagani does not teach forming a second dielectric.
Maruyama teaches forming a second insulating dielectric layer (170), which covers the first test pad (142) and the first insulating dielectric layer (152) (fig 10); and planarizing (note the planar surface) the second insulating dielectric layer (170) so that the remaining height of the protrusion (144) is smaller than a height of a surface of the planarized second insulating dielectric layer (170) (paragraph 98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second dielectric layer in order to protect the underlying structures and to provide a planar surface for subsequent processes (Maruyama paragraph 68)
Regarding claim 11
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba in view of Maruyama teaches the method of claim 10.
Pagani teaches the protrusion is eliminated after annealing (paragraph 70) (fig 7,8).
Tuckerman teaches laser annealing (column 3 lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 12.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba in view of Maruyama teaches the method of claim 10.
Pagani teaches providing a wafer or die (110); and bonding a side of the insulating dielectric layer (104) away from the substrate (100) to the wafer or die (110) (fig 17,19) (paragraph 111-116).
Pagani does not teach underlying interconnect.
Maruyama teaches a metal interconnect (133,132) is formed in the first insulating dielectric layer (131) (paragraph 62), wherein the bottom of the first test pad (142) is electrically connected to the metal interconnect (133,132) (fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide interconnect connected to the test pad so that the test pad can be used to connect to internal structures.
Regarding claim 13.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba in view of Maruyama teaches the method of claim 12.
Pagani teaches bonding a die (110) to the bonding side and bonding a conductive structure (113a) to the test pad (106) (fig 17,19)
Maruyama teaches subsequent to the planarization of the second insulating dielectric layer (170) (fig 10h) and prior to the bonding of the side of the second insulating dielectric layer (170b) away from the substrate (120) to the wafer or die (400) (fig 14i,j), forming a conductive structure (160) electrically connected to the pad (141) in the second insulating dielectric layer (170) (paragraph 111) (fig 11k), or subsequent to the bonding of the side of the second insulating dielectric layer away from the substrate to the wafer or die, forming a conductive structure, which extends through the wafer or die into the second insulating dielectric layer and is electrically connected to the first test pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a conductive structure through a planarized dielectric layer in order to form a closer connection between the bonded die.
Regarding claim 14.
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba in view of Maruyama teaches the method of claim 12.
Maruyama teaches a second test pad (141) is further formed, the bottom of the second test pad electrically connected to the metal interconnect (133) (fig 4) (paragraph 62), and subsequent to the planarization of the second insulating dielectric layer (170) and prior to the bonding of the side of the second insulating dielectric layer away from the substrate to the wafer or die (120) (fig 10h), the method further comprising forming a conductive structure (160), which extends through the second insulating dielectric layer (170) and is electrically connected to the second test pad (141) (fig 4) (paragraph 86-88), or subsequent to the bonding of the side of the second insulating dielectric layer away from the substrate to the wafer or die, the method further comprising forming conductive structure, which extends through the wafer or die and the second insulating dielectric layer into the first insulating dielectric layer and is electrically connected to the second test pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional pad with an electrical connection so that additional circuits can be supplied with voltage via application of power to the conductive structure.
Regarding claim 16
Pagani in view of Tuckerman in view of Liu in view of Chiba in view of Maruyama teaches the method of claim 10.
Maruyama teaches the second insulating dielectric layer is planarized by a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (paragraph 98).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior teaches globalized heating of the wafer rather than localized heating of the pad.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, Pagani references a different solution described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,391,516, which is incorporated by reference, the contact pads are repaired after the testing step using a laser beam that heats the pads themselves beyond the melting temperature (paragraph 12)
The applicant argues that Tuckerman uses a global heating approach, covering a large area, for the purpose of planarization rather than local heating to reduce protrusion size.
The applicant will note that Tuckerman explicitly states that the area is limited (column 3 line27-30), not global. Further, the applicant explicitly states that the laser irradiates a large area (US pgpub 2023/0395440, paragraph 69). Further, reducing the size of protrusions is another way to say planarization (The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test MPEP 2131). Pagani and Tuckerman achieve this in the same manner, using heat to melt the surface.
The applicant argues that Liu merely teaches the height of the protrusion is limited rather than a manner of reducing the height of the protrusion.
Liu was merely relied upon to teach that many protrusion heights (including that claimed by the applicant) are known, and it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the height of any sized protrusion (including that claimed), reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 - 19:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571)272-5055. 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.
/D.J.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 January 13, 2026