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 (encompassing claims 1-14 and newly added 27-32) in the reply filed on 12/10/25 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/31/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites performing the substrate level warpage correction includes “at least one of: forming a warpage correction layer in the RDL structure; forming a front side warpage correction layer over the RDL structure; and forming a back side warpage correction layer” (lines 7-11). There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “at least one of” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if the “at least one” comprises at least one forming a warpage correction layer in the RDL structure step AND at least one forming a front side warpage correction layer over the RDL structure step AND at least one forming a back side warpage correction layer step. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “at least one” comprises one or more of the group of forming a warpage correction layer in the RDL structure, forming a front side warpage correction layer over the RDL structure, and forming a back side warpage correction layer (i.e., “at least one of” comprises forming a warpage correction layer in the RDL structure OR forming a front side warpage correction layer over the RDL structure OR forming a back side warpage correction layer). Because both interpretations have support in the Specification but have differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the former interpretation (i.e., the “at least one” comprises each of the listed steps). However, correction and/or clarification is requested. Examiner notes that if applicant intended the latter interpretation, Examiner recommends to change “at least one of” in lines 7-8 to - - at least one of the group of - - or change “and” in line 10 to - - or - -.
Claims 2-8 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the warpage correction layer includes “one of a stress dielectric layer in a RDL structure over the interconnect structure, a front side dielectric planar layer over the RDL layer, and a back side stress layer on a back side of the substrate” (lines 9-12). There is a grammatical incongruity between the term “one” and the conjunction “and.” As written, it is unclear if the “one” comprises one stress dielectric layer in a RDL structure over the interconnect structure AND one front side dielectric planar layer over the RDL layer AND one back side stress layer on a back side of the substrate. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “one” comprises one of the group of a stress dielectric layer in a RDL structure over the interconnect structure, a front side dielectric planar layer over the RDL layer, and a back side stress layer on a back side of the substrate (i.e., “one” comprises a stress dielectric layer in a RDL structure over the interconnect structure OR a front side dielectric planar layer over the RDL layer OR a back side stress layer on a back side of the substrate). Because both interpretations have support in the Specification but have differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the former interpretation (i.e., the “one” comprises each of the listed layers). However, correction and/or clarification is requested. Examiner notes that if applicant intended the latter interpretation, Examiner recommends to change “one of” in line 10 to - - one of the group of - - or change “and” in line 11 to - - or - -.
Claims 10-14 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsugai et al. (U.S. 2012/0248580 A1; “Matsugai”).
Regarding claim 27, Matsugai discloses a method comprising:
Providing a substrate having a device layer (Tr1-4, Fig. 4) formed on a front side and a front side interconnect structure (41, Fig. 4) formed over the device layer ([0109]-[0111], [0115]);
Measuring a substrate level warpage of the substrate ([0118]);
Determining a difference between the measured warpage and a target warpage ([0118]); and,
Forming a warpage correction layer if the difference is greater than a warpage tolerance ([0118]-[0119]),
Wherein the warpage correction layer (13, Fig. 4) includes a stress layer formed over the front side or a back side of the substrate ([0117]).
Regarding claim 28, Matsugai discloses determining characteristics of the warpage correction layer according to the difference between the measured warpage and the target warpage ([0118]).
Regarding claim 29, Matsugai discloses forming the warpage correction layer comprises: depositing a first passivation layer (42, Fig. 4) over the front side interconnect structure; and depositing a first warpage correction layer (13, Fig. 4) on the first passivation layer ([0117]).
Regarding claim 30, Matsugai discloses forming the warpage correction layer comprises: depositing a second passivation layer (16, Fig. 7) on the first warpage correction layer (13, Fig. 4); and depositing a second warpage correction layer (14, Fig. 7) on the second passivation layer ([0135]-[0137]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 27 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. 9,337,087 B1; “Zhang”) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. 2017/0162522 A1; “Chang”).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang discloses a method comprising:
Providing a substrate (18, Fig. 13) having a device layer (30, Fig. 13) formed on a front side and a front side interconnect structure (32, 34, Fig. 13) formed over the device layer (col 4, lines 15-22; col 8, line 31 – col 9, line 24).
Yet, Zhang does not disclose the following:
Measuring a substrate level warpage of the substrate;
Determining a difference between the measured warpage and a target warpage; and,
Forming a warpage correction layer if the difference is greater than a warpage tolerance,
Wherein the warpage correction layer includes a stress layer formed over the front side or a back side of the substrate.
However, Chang discloses the following:
Measuring a substrate level warpage of a substrate (820, Fig. 8) ([0039]);
Determining a difference between the measured warpage and a target warpage (830, Fig. 8) ([0040]); and,
Forming a warpage correction layer (860, Fig. 8) if the difference is greater than a warpage tolerance ([0040]-[0041]),
Wherein the warpage correction layer (350, Fig. 3) includes a stress layer formed over the back side of the substrate ([0041], [0027]).
This has the advantage of compensating for warpage of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Zhang with measuring a substrate level warpage of a substrate, determining a difference between the measured warpage and a target warpage, forming a warpage correction layer if the difference is greater than a warpage tolerance and wherein the warpage correction layer includes a stress layer formed over the back side of the substrate, as taught by Chang, so as to compensate for warpage of the substrate.
Regarding claim 32, Zhang as modified by Chang discloses forming the warpage correction layer comprises: depositing a first back side stress layer (350, Fig. 3) on the back side of the substrate ([0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is 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.
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation that performing the substrate level warpage correction includes forming a warpage correction layer in the RDL structure and forming a front side warpage correction layer over the RDL structure and forming a back side warpage correction layer (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above regarding Examiner’s interpretation of this claim) in combination with the other elements of the claim. Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1.
Claim 9 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation the warpage correction layer includes one of a stress dielectric layer in a RDL structure over the interconnect structure, and one of a front side dielectric planar layer over the RDL layer, and one of a back side stress layer on a back side of the substrate (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 9 above regarding Examiner’s interpretation of this claim) in combination with the other elements of the claim. Claims 10-14 depend on claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights