Notice of 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry et al. (US 2009/0032951 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2015/0235899 A1).
Regarding independent claim 16: Andry teaches (e.g., Figs. 2 and 13-14) a through-silicon-via (TSV) structure, comprising:
a silicon-based substrate ([0031], [0043] and [0048]: silicon based substrate);
a TSV running through the silicon-based substrate ([0043]: step 1310; Fig. 2 initial through hole 202), and the TSV being vertical ([0043]: step 1310; 202); and
an inner wall of the TSV being smooth ([0043] and [0047]);
the claimed limitation:
“the forming comprising placing the silicon-based substrate on a supporting substrate and etching the silicon-based substrate, the silicon-based substrate being in direct contact with the supporting substrate, an etching depth of the etching being greater than a thickness of the silicon-based substrate, and the supporting substrate being slightly etched as part of the through hole” is a method of making the device.
Applicant is reminded that a "product claim" is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC); and most recently, In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) all of which make it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a "product claim" and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not.
Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear; MPEP § 2113.
Andry does not expressly teach that the inner wall is free of a silicon oxide film.
However, Wang teaches (e.g., Figs. 1A-1D) a method comprising forming an initial through hole ([0015]: 3) and oxidizing an inner wall of the initial through hole to form a silicon oxide film on the inner wall ([0015]: 3a) of the initial through hole ([0015]);
Wang further teaches removing all of the silicon oxide film on the inner wall ([0015]: 3a) of the initial through hole ([0015]: 3) to obtain a smooth inner wall and a TSV structure with a TSV ([0015]).
Therefore, Andry teaches that the inner wall is free of a silicon oxide film ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the device of Andry, the TSV, wherein the inner wall is free of a silicon oxide film, as taught by Wang, for the benefits of cleaning the trench from debris, humidity and native oxide layer detrimental to the device interconnect and thus improving device interconnect reliability.
Regarding claim 17: Andry teaches the claim limitation of the TSV structure according to claim 16, on which this claim depends,
wherein the silicon-based substrate has a polished surface ([0043] and [0047]: step 1310 and 1410 results in a polished surface; Fig. 2: the through hole 202 does not include a wavy surface).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andry et al. (US 2009/0032951 A1) in view of Miyakawa et al. (US 2009/0160050 A1) and Wang et al. (US 2015/0235899 A1).
Regarding independent claim 18: Andry teaches (e.g., Figs. 2 and 13-14) an electronic device, comprising:
a through-silicon-via (TSV) interconnection structure ([0035]),
the TSV interconnection structure comprises: a silicon-based substrate ([0031], [0043] and [0048]: silicon-based substrate),
a TSV running through the silicon-based substrate ([0043] and [0047]: step 1310 and 1410 results in a polished surface; Fig. 2), and the TSV being vertical, and an inner wall of the TSV being smooth ([0043] and [0047]: step 1310 and 1410 results in a polished surface; Fig. 2: the through hole 202 does not include a wavy surface);
the claimed limitation:
“wherein an initial through hole is formed running through the silicon-based substrate, the forming comprising placing the silicon-based substrate on a supporting substrate and etching the silicon-based substrate, the silicon-based substrate being in direct contact with the supporting substrate, an etching depth of the etching being greater than a thickness of the silicon-based substrate, and the supporting substrate being slightly etched as part of the through hole”, is a method of making the device.
Applicant is reminded that a "product claim" is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC); and most recently, In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) all of which make it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a "product claim" and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not.
Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear; MPEP § 2113.
Andy does not expressly teach
a first chip;
a second chip; and
wherein: the first chip, the TSV interconnection structure and the second chip are stacked in sequence,
the first chip and the second chip are interconnected through the TSV interconnection structure;
Andry does not expressly teach that the inner wall is free of a silicon oxide film.
Miyakawa teaches (e.g., Figs. 17-20) an electronic device, comprising an interconnection structure ([0071]-[0077]: interconnection structure in 1WC;)
a first chip ([0067]: 1WB);
a second chip ([0067]: 1WA);
wherein: the first chip (1WB), the TSV interconnection structure and the second chip (1WA) are stacked in sequence ([0071]-[0077]: interconnection structure in 1WC),
the first chip and the second chip are interconnected through the TSV interconnection structure ([0071]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the method of Andy, the first chip; the second chip; and wherein the first chip, the TSV interconnection structure and the second chip are stacked in sequence, the first chip and the second chip are interconnected through the TSV interconnection structure, as taught by Miyakawa, for the benefits on increasing the device density, which in turn increases the integrated circuit functionality and capacity.
However, Wang teaches (e.g., Figs. 1A-1D) a method comprising forming an initial through hole ([0015]: 3) and oxidizing an inner wall of the initial through hole to form a silicon oxide film on the inner wall ([0015]: 3a) of the initial through hole ([0015]);
Wang further teaches removing all of the silicon oxide film on the inner wall ([0015]: 3a) of the initial through hole ([0015]: 3) to obtain a smooth inner wall and a TSV structure with a TSV ([0015]).
Therefore, Andry teaches that the inner wall is free of a silicon oxide film ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the device of Andry as modified by Miyakawa, the TSV, wherein the inner wall is free of a silicon oxide film, as taught by Wang, for the benefits of cleaning the trench from debris, humidity and native oxide layer detrimental to the device interconnect and thus improving device interconnect reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument or for newly included limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability:
Regarding claim 1: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, a method for manufacturing a through-silicon-via (TSV) structure, the method comprising:
“wherein forming the initial through hole comprises placing the silicon-based substrate on a supporting substrate and etching the silicon-based substrate, the silicon-based substrate being in direct contact with the supporting substrate, an etching depth of the etching being greater than a thickness of the silicon-based substrate, and the supporting substrate being slightly etched as part of the through hole”.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1, and therefore, are allowable for the same reason as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812