DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US 2020/0381397).
As for claim 13, Yu et al. disclose in Figs. 1-26 and the related text a device comprising:
a first die 110’;
a first liner layer 148 extending along first sidewalls of the first die;
a first dielectric material 150/248/250 on the first liner layer and around the first die (Fig. 18);
a second die 310’ over and electrically coupled to the first die (Fig. 18);
a second liner layer 348 extending along second sidewalls of the second die 310’ and along a first surface of the first dielectric material facing the second die (Fig. 18), wherein the second liner layer is spaced apart from the first liner layer (Fig. 18); and
a second dielectric material 350 on the second liner layer and around the second die (Fig. 18), wherein there is lateral offset between each of the first sidewalls of the first die and a respective closest second sidewall of the second die 310’ (Fig. 18).
As for claim 15, Yu et al. disclose the device of claim 13, further comprising: a dielectric film 154/156 between, and contacting, the first die and the second die (Fig. 8-18); through-substrate-vias (TSVs) 126/326 coupled between a first interconnect structure 142 of the first die and a second interconnect structure 342 of the second die, wherein the TSVs 126/326 extend through a first substrate of the first die 110’, or through a second substrate of the second die 320; and conductive pads 160 in the dielectric film, wherein the TSVs extend into the dielectric film, and are coupled to the conductive pads (Fig. 18).
As for claim 16, Yu et al. disclose the device of claim 13, wherein the second liner layer 348 is softer than the first liner layer 148 ([0025] and [0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2022/0328445) in view of Yu et al. (US 20170207197).
As for claim 1, Yu discloses in Fig. 1A-1B and the related text a device comprising:
a first integrated circuit (IC) die 110;
a first dielectric material 310 around first sidewalls of the first IC die (Fig. 1B);
a second IC die 210A over and electrically coupled to the first IC die (Fig. 1B); and
a second dielectric material 320 over the first dielectric material and around second sidewalls of the second IC die (Fig. 1B), wherein in a top view, the second sidewalls of the second IC die 110 are disposed within, and are spaced apart from, the first sidewalls of the first IC die 210A (Fig. 1A).
Yu et al. do not disclose a closest lateral distance between the first sidewalls of the first IC die and the second sidewalls of the second IC die is larger than one third of a thickness of the second IC die, wherein the thickness of the second IC die is measured along a first direction between a lower surface of the second IC die facing the first IC die and an upper surface of the second IC die facing away from the first IC die, wherein the first direction is parallel to the second sidewalls of the second IC die.
Yu et al. teach in Fig. 1 and the related text a closest lateral distance between the first sidewalls of the first IC die 104a/104b and the second sidewalls of the second IC die 114 is larger than one third of a thickness of the second IC die (fig. 1), wherein the thickness of the second IC die 114 is measured along a first direction between a lower surface of the second IC die facing the first IC die and an upper surface of the second IC die facing away from the first IC die (Fig. 1), wherein the first direction is parallel to the second sidewalls of the second IC die (Fig. 1).
Yu et al. and Yu are analogous art because they both are directed packaging cases and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the limitations as taught by Yu et al. in order to achieve the device properties and performance of the device.
As for claim 3, Yu discloses the device of claim 1, except a closest lateral distance between the first sidewalls of the first IC die and the second sidewalls of the second IC die is larger than 0µm and smaller than about 80µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a closest lateral distance between the first sidewalls of the first IC die and the second sidewalls of the second IC die is larger than o pm and smaller than about 80pm, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Futhermore, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
As for claim 4, Yu discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising: external connectors 500 at a front-side of the first IC die distal from the second IC die 210A; and through-substrate vias (TSVs) 170 extending through a first substrate of the first IC die 110 (Fig. 1), wherein the TSVs protrudes (lower portion of 130) protrude above a back-side of the first substrate distal from the external connectors (Fig. 1B), wherein the second IC die 210A is electrically coupled to the TSVs (FIG. 1B).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Yu et al. (US 2020/0118908).
As for claim 5-6, Yu discloses the device of claim 4, further comprising: a bonding film 400 between the first IC die 110 and the second IC die 210A; and conductive pads 150/250 in the bonding film, wherein the second IC die 210A is bonded to the conductive pads 150/250,
Yu does not disclose TSVs extends extend into the bonding film and are coupled to respective ones of the conductive pads, wherein die connectors of a second IC die are bonded to the conductive pads through metal-to-metal bonding, wherein an exterior dielectric layer of the second IC die is bonded to the bonding film through dielectric-to-dielectric bonding.
Yu et al. disclose in Fig. 5/7 and the related text TSVs 81/30-2 of a die L4/M2 extends extend into the bonding film 78/26B and are coupled to respective ones of the conductive pads 76/24B, wherein die connectors 30-3/24A of a second IC die M3/L1 are bonded to the conductive pads 76/24B through metal-to-metal bonding (Fig. 5/7, [0018]), wherein an exterior dielectric layer 38B/38A of the second IC die M3/L1 is bonded to the bonding film 26B through dielectric-to- dielectric bonding (Fig. 5/7, [0018]).
Yu, Yu et al. and Yu et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the combined device because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combined device to include the limitations as taught by Yu et al., in order to improve interconnections.
As for claim 7, Yu discloses device of claim 5, a dummy die 220 laterally adjacent to the second IC die 210A, wherein the dummy die 220 is over and attached to the bonding film 400, wherein in the top view, third sidewalls of the dummy die 220 are disposed within, and are spaced apart from, the first sidewalls of the first IC die 110 (Fig. 1A).
As for claim 8, Yu discloses the device of claim 7, further comprising a dummy via 32/76 (that forms above 32) that extends through the second dielectric material 38B, through the bonding film 78, and (electrically/thermally) contacts the first dielectric material 79 (Fig. 5 or 30).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Yu et al. and further in view of Chen et al. (US 9,859,245).
As for claim 9-10, Yu discloses the device of claim 1, except a first liner layer between the first IC die and the first dielectric material, wherein the first liner layer contacts and extends along the first sidewalls of the first IC die; and a second liner layer between the second IC die and the second dielectric material, wherein the second liner layer contacts and extends along the second sidewalls of the second IC die, wherein the second liner layer has a different composition than the first liner layer.
Chen et al. teach in Fig. 1A-1J and the related text a first liner layer 180 between the first IC die 170 and the first dielectric material (lower layer 240), wherein the first liner layer 180 contacts and extends along the first sidewalls of the first IC die 170; and a second liner layer 146 between the second IC die 130 and the second dielectric material (upper portion of 240), wherein the second liner layer 140 contacts and extends along the second sidewalls of the second IC die 130, wherein the second liner layer has a different composition than the first liner layer (col. 3 lines 12-15 and col. 4 lines 25-29)
Yu and Chen et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the limitations as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve chip protection.
As for claim 11, Yu discloses the device of claim 9, wherein a second Young's modulus of the second liner layer 140 (as silicon oxide, col. 3 lines 12-15) is smaller than a first Young's modulus of the first liner layer 180 (as silicon nitride, col. 4 lines 25-29).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. in view of Yu et al.
As for claim 14, Yu et al. disclose the device of claim 13, except in a top view, the second die is disposed within a perimeter defined by the first sidewalls of the first die, and a closest distance between the first sidewalls and the second sidewalls is larger than one third of a thickness of the second die, wherein the thickness of the second die is measured between a lower surface of the second die facing the first die and an upper surface of the second die facing away from the first die.
Yu teaches in Fig. 1A-8B and the related text in a top view, the second die 114 is disposed within a perimeter defined by the first sidewalls of the first die 104a/104b, and a closest distance between the first sidewalls and the second sidewalls is larger than one third of a thickness of the second die, wherein the thickness of the second die is measured between a lower surface of the second die facing the first die and an upper surface of the second die facing away from the first die.
Yu and Yu et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yu et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu et al. to include the limitations as taught by Yu in order to improve performance of the packaging device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 17 and 24 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.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see previous office action.
Claims 21-23 are allowed.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see previous office action.
Claims 22-23 depend among allowable claim 21.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: “the via extends through the second dielectric material, through the second liner layer, and to the first dielectric material, wherein sidewalls of the via are free of the second liner layer”, as recited in claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-12 above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, with respect to the rejection of claim 13 that Yu does not disclose the second liner layer is spaced apart from the first liner layer have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the following reasons.
Figs. 1-18 of Yu clearly teach wherein the second liner layer 348 is spaced apart from the first liner layer 148.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Examiner believes that all Applicant’s arguments and remarks are addressed. The Examiner has determined that the previous Office Action is still proper based on the above responses. Therefore, the rejections are sustained and maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3259. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 5712721670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRANG Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights