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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on April 05th, 2023 has been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Three-dimensional (3D) hybrid bond integration for multi-die assembly.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 6, “oxide liner material” should be change to --an oxide liner material-- in order to provide proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0296283).
In re claim 1, Huang discloses a three-dimensional (3D) die architecture, comprising: a first die 106b (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1); a second die 106a comprising multiple interior layers of various types (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1, note that multiple interior layers include device layers 112 and interconnect structures 114), the second die 106a being hybrid bonded to the first die 106b along a hybrid bond layer 108 (see paragraph [0025] and fig. 1, note that hybrid bonding at front side bond interface 106 includes both metal-to-metal and dielectric-to-dielectric bond); oxide liner material 134 extending from an exposed surface of the second die 106a to the hybrid bond layer 108 (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 1, note that element 134 comprises silicon oxide); a first through-silicon-via (TSV) (left-side 132) extending from the exposed surface to a corresponding one of the multiple interior layers; and a second TSV (right-side 132) extending within the oxide liner material 134 from the exposed surface to the hybrid bond layer 108 (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 4, a applied to claim 1 above, Huang discloses wherein the multiple interior layers comprise a passivation layer, dielectric layers 112, back-end-of-line (BEOL) layers 114 and semiconductor substrate layers 110 (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1).
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) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Pub. 2015/0021784) in view of Yokoya et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0016477).
In re claim 11, Lin discloses a three-dimensional (3D) die architecture package, comprising: first 100 and second 200 dies hybrid bonded to one another and each comprising multiple interior layers of various types (see paragraphs [0041] and fig. 2C); oxide liner material 410 extending through the first 100 and second 200 dies (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2C); first through-silicon-vias (TSVs) 430b electrically communicative with the first conductive bumps 166 and extending from the first conductive bumps 166 and through the second die 200 to a corresponding one of the multiple interior layers (see paragraphs [0036], [0040] and fig. 2C).
PNG
media_image2.png
483
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huang is silent to a package die, first conductive bumps and second conductive bump electrically communicative and thermally communicative with the package die, respectively and a second TSV thermally communicative with the second conductive bump and extending within the oxide liner material through the second and first dies; and a heat sink thermally communicative with the second TSV.
However, Yokoya discloses in a same field of endeavor a three-dimensional (3D) die architecture package including, inter-alia, a package die 230 (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 6), first conductive bumps 135 and second conductive bump 135 electrically communicative and thermally communicative with the package die 230 (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 6), respectively and a second TSV 161 thermally communicative with the second conductive bump 135 and extending within the oxide liner material through the second 210 and first 110 dies (see paragraph [0024] and fig. 6); and a heat sink (130,610) thermally communicative with the second TSV 161 (see paragraphs [0020], [0033] and fig. 6).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Yokoya into the 3D die architecture package of Lin in order to enable a package die, first conductive bumps and second conductive bump electrically communicative and thermally communicative with the package die, respectively and a second TSV thermally communicative with the second conductive bump and extending within the oxide liner material through the second and first dies; and a heat sink thermally communicative with the second TSV in Lin to be formed in order to enhance cooling of the 3D die architecture package (see paragraph [0001] of Yokoya). Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin in combination with Yokoya discloses wherein the 3D architecture package further comprising a cover 417 supportively disposed on the package die 230 (see paragraph [0032] and fig. 6 of Yokoya).
In re claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin in combination with Yokoya discloses wherein the multiple interior layers of each of the first and second dies comprise a passivation layer, dielectric layers, back-end-of-line (BEOL) layers and semiconductor substrate layers (see paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0013] of Lin).
In re claim 14, as applied to claim 11 above, Lin and Yokoya are silent to wherein the second TSV is larger than the first TSVs in multiple dimensions.
However, it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape of the first TSVs and the second TSV was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0296283) in view of Lin (U.S. Pub. 2015/0021784).
In re claim 15, Huang discloses a method of assembling a three-dimensional (3D) die architecture, the method comprising: fabricating a first die 106b (see paragraph [226] and fig. 1); fabricating a second die 106a comprising multiple interior layers of various types (112,114) (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1); hybrid bonding the second die 106a to the first die 160b along a hybrid bond layer 108 (see paragraph [0025] and fig. 1); extending oxide liner material 134 to the hybrid bond layer 108 (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 1); extending first through-silicon-vias (TSVs) (left-side 132) partially through each of the second die 110a to respective corresponding ones of the multiple interior layers; and extending a second TSV (right-side 132) within the oxide liner material 134 to the hybrid bond layer 108 (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 1).
Huang is silent to fabricating a plurality of second dies, extending oxide liner material between the second dies, and extending a second TSV within the oxide liner material between the second dies.
However, Lin discloses in a same field of endeavor, a method of assembling a three-dimensional (3D) die architecture including, inter-alia, a process of fabricating a plurality of second dies 203 (see paragraph [0023] and fig. 1E), extending oxide liner 410 material between the second dies 203, and extending a second TSV 430 within the oxide liner material 410 between the second dies 203 (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 1E).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Lin into the method of assembling the 3D die architecture of Huang in order to enable the processes of fabricating a plurality of second dies, extending oxide liner material between the second dies, and extending a second TSV within the oxide liner material between the second dies in Huang to be performed in order to improve the integration density of electric components (see paragraphs [0003], [0004] of Lin). Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, Huang in combination with Lin discloses wherein the method further comprising dicing the first die from an adjacent first die (see paragraph [0035] of Lin).
In re claim 17, as applied to claim 15 above, Huang in combination with Lin discloses wherein the method further comprising electrically and thermally connecting the first and second TSVs to a package die (not shown) via conductive bumps 166 (see paragraphs [0040], [0041] and fig. 2C of Lin, note that, Lin discloses that the interconnect structure 500 is electrically connected to another package (not shown) on the backside 100b of the semiconductor wafer 100 via TSV 400b and conductive element 166).
In re claim 19, as applied to claim 15 above, Huang in combination with Lin discloses wherein each of the second dies comprises one or more of a memory die and a logic die (see paragraph [0012] of Lin).
In re claim 20, as applied to claim 15 above, Huang in combination with Lin discloses wherein the extending of the oxide liner material between the second dies to the hybrid bond layer comprises extending multiple oxide liner materials between the second dies to the hybrid bond layer; and the extending of the second TSV within the oxide liner material comprises extending multiple second TSVs within the multiple oxide liner materials (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2C of Lin).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0296283) in view of Yokoya et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0016477).
In re claims 2 and 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Huang is silent to wherein the 3D die architecture package further comprising: a package die; and conductive bumps by which the first and second TSVs are electrically communicative with the package die and further comprising: a cover supportively disposed on the package die; and a heat sink disposed in thermal communication with the second TSV.
However, Yokoya discloses in a same field of endeavor, a 3D die architecture package, including, inter-alia, a package die 230 (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 6); and conductive bumps 135 by which the first and second TSVs 161 are electrically communicative with the package die 230 (see paragraph [0020] and fig. 6) and further comprising: a cover 417 supportively disposed on the package die 230 (see paragraph [0032] and fig. 6); and a heat sink (130,610) disposed in thermal communication with the second TSV 161 (see paragraphs [0020], [0033] and fig. 6).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Yokoya into the 3D die architecture package of Huang in order to enable wherein the 3D die architecture package further comprising: a package die; and conductive bumps by which the first and second TSVs are electrically communicative with the package die and further comprising: a cover supportively disposed on the package die; and a heat sink disposed in thermal communication with the second TSV in Huang to be formed in order to enhance cooling of the 3D die architecture package (see paragraph [0001] of Yokoya).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0296283)
In re claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Huang is silent to wherein the second TSV is larger than the first TSVs in multiple dimensions.
However, it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape of the first TSVs and the second TSV was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0296283) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0021784).
In re claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Huang is silent to wherein the second die is provided as two second dies hybrid bonded to the first die along the hybrid bond layer, and the oxide liner material and the second TSV extending within the oxide liner material are disposed between the two second dies.
However, Lin discloses in a same field of endeavor, a 3D architecture package, including, inter-alia, wherein the second die is provided as two second dies 203 hybrid bonded to the first die 100 along the hybrid bond layer (see paragraph [0023] and fig. 2C), and the oxide liner material 410 and the second TSV 430 extending within the oxide liner material 410 are disposed between the two second dies 203 (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2C).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Lin into the 3D die architecture of Huang in order to enable wherein the second die is provided as two second dies hybrid bonded to the first die along the hybrid bond layer, and the oxide liner material and the second TSV extending within the oxide liner material are disposed between the two second dies in Huang to be performed in order to improve the integration density of electric components (see paragraphs [0003], [0004] of Lin).
In re claim 7, as applied to claim 6 above, Huang in combination with Lin discloses wherein each of the two second dies comprises one or more of a memory die and a logic die (see paragraph [0012] of Lin).
In re claim 8, as applied to claim 6 above, Huang in combination with Lin discloses wherein multiple first TSVs are provided with each of the two second dies (see paragraph [0033] and fig. 1 of Huang).
In re claim 9, as applied to claim 6 above, Huang in combination with Lin discloses wherein multiple second TSVs are disposed between the two second dies (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2C of Lin).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0296283) in view of Lin (U.S. Pub. 2015/0021784), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yokoya et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0016477).
In re claim 18, as applied to claim 15 above, Huang and Lin are silent to wherein the method further comprising: supportively disposing a cover on the package die; and disposing a heat sink in thermal communication with the second TSV.
However, Yokoya discloses in a same field of endeavor, a method of fabricating a 3D architecture package, including, inter-alia, a process of supportively disposing a cover 417 on the package die 230; and disposing a heat sink (130, 610) in thermal communication with the second TSV 161 (see paragraphs [0020], [0032], [0033] and fig. 6).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Yokoya into the method of fabricating the 3D die architecture package of Huang in order to enable the step of supportively disposing a cover on the package die; and disposing a heat sink in thermal communication with the second TSV in Huang to be performed in order to enhance cooling of the 3D die architecture package (see paragraph [0001] of Yokoya).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
England (U.S. Pub. 2019/0304954) discloses a three-dimensional (3D) die architecture including, inter-alia, a first die 104 (see paragraph [0029] and fig. 13); a second die 190 (see paragraph [0044] and fig. 13), and a first through-silicon-via (TSV) 131 extending the first die 104 (see paragraph [0034] and fig. 13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights