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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Amended independent Claim 21 states “and a second through substrate via (TSV) structures are in the second substrate.” It is recommended that Claim 21 instead state “and a plurality of second through substrate via (TSV) structures are in the second substrate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al. (“Ang”), US 2019/0096840, in view of Huang et al. (“Huang”), US 20180151537.
Regarding Claim 10, Ang discloses method for forming a package structure (10; ¶ 0008 “package 10”; Figs. 1C-1E), comprising:
forming a first die (300; Fig. 1C; ¶ 0010 “first dies 300”) over a carrier substrate (100; Figs 1C-1E; ¶ 0008 “first carrier 100”), wherein the first die comprises a first substrate (the upper portion of first die 300 closest to surface 300b; Figs. 1C-1E; ¶ 0009);
forming a buffer layer (500; Figs. 1C-1E; ¶ 0012 “encapsulation material 500”) on the first die (Figs. 1C-1E; ¶ 0012 “a second surface 500b of the encapsulation material 500 is located at a level height higher than both of the rear surfaces 300b of the first dies 300”), wherein the first die is surrounded by the buffer layer (Fig. 1C; ¶ 0012 “encapsulation material 500 completely encapsulates the first dies 300”);
performing a planarization process (Fig. 1D; ¶ 0013 “the thinning process includes a mechanical grinding process, a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process, or a combination thereof”) on the buffer layer (Fig. 1D; ¶ 0013 “a thinning process is performed to reduce the height…of the encapsulation material 500”) and the first substrate of the first die (Fig. 1D; ¶ 0013 “a thinning process is performed to reduce the height… of the first dies 300”) to form a thinned first substrate (Figs. 1C-1D; ¶ 0013 in this instance the height of the first substrate (that is the upper portion of first die 300 closest to surface 300b) is thinned from a height of H300 to a height of H300’);
forming a first bonding layer (620; Fig. 1E; ¶ 0015 “die attach film (DAF) 620”) on the thinned first substrate and the remaining buffer layer (Fig. 1E; ¶ 0015) to form a first package structure (Fig. 1E).
Ang does not disclose
wherein the first die comprises a first substrate and a first conductive plug formed in the first substrate; and
bonding the first package structure to a second package structure by bonding the first bonding layer to a second bonding layer, wherein the second package structure comprises a second substrate, and a width of the second substrate is greater than a width of the first substrate.
Huang discloses
wherein the first die (300; Fig. 1E; ¶ 0043) comprises a first substrate (310; Fig. 1B; ¶ 0023 “300 includes a substrate 310”, ¶ 0027) and a first conductive plug (330; Fig. 1E; ¶ 0025) formed in the first substrate (¶ 0025 “conductive features 330 are embedded in the substrate 310”); and
bonding (Fig. 1C; ¶ 0035, 0043) the first package structure (300; Figs. 1C, 1E) to a second package structure (100; Figs. 1C, 1E) by bonding the first bonding layer (440; Fig. 1C; ¶ 0036) to a second bonding layer (240; Fig. 1C; ¶ 0036), wherein the second package structure (100) comprises a second substrate (110; Fig. 1A; ¶ 0012 “100 includes a semiconductor substrate 110”), and a width of the second substrate is greater than (¶ 0005 “It should be noted that, in accordance with the standard practice in the industry, various features are not drawn to scale. In fact, the dimensions of the various features may be arbitrarily increased or reduced for clarity of discussion.”; ¶ 0004 of the pending application has the exact same wording; therefore in this instance a width of the second substrate 110 is greater than a width of the first substrate 310) a width of the first substrate (310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Ang to have wherein the first die comprises a first substrate and a first conductive plug formed in the first substrate; and bonding the first package structure to a second package structure by bonding the first bonding layer to a second bonding layer, wherein the second package structure comprises a second substrate, and a width of the second substrate is greater than a width of the first substrate, as taught by Huang, in order to “improve the density and functionality” of the package structure (Huang ¶ 0004).
Huang does not specifically disclose a width of the second substrate is greater than a width of the first substrate.
MPEP 2144.04(IV)( A) describes changes in size/proportion - In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Huang to have a width of the second substrate is greater than a width of the first substrate, because a package structure having a width of the second substrate greater than a width of the first substrate would not preform differently, therefore different substrate widths provides design flexibility and an optimization of the package structure.
Regarding Claim 13, Ang discloses further comprising:
forming nanostructures over the first substrate (¶ 0009 “first dies 300 may include…application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) chips” it is known that ASICs have nanostructures and they would be formed over the substrate);
forming an interconnect structure over the nanostructures (¶ 0009 it is known that ASICs have an interconnect structure and it would be formed over the nanostructure); and
forming the first bonding layer over the interconnect structure (Fig. 1E; ¶ 0009 the bonding layer 620 is over the ASIC 300 that has the interconnect structure).
Regarding Claim 14, Ang discloses wherein the first substrate (the upper portion of first die 300 closest to surface 300b) is in direct contact with the buffer layer (Fig. 1C; ¶ 0010 “first dies 300…are bare dies”, ¶ 0012 “encapsulation material 500 completely encapsulates the first dies 300” and “a second surface 500b of the encapsulation material 500 is located at a level height higher than…surfaces 300b of the first dies 300”) before removing the portion of the buffer layer and the portion of the first substrate (Figs. 1C-1D; ¶ 0013 “a thinning process is performed to reduce the height…of the encapsulation material 500”).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al. (“Ang”), US 2019/0096840, and Huang et al. (“Huang”), US 20180151537, as applied to Claim 10 supra, in view of Shao et al. (“Shao”), US 2020/0091039.
Regarding Claim 11, Ang as modified by Huang does not disclose further comprising:
forming through substrate via (TSV) structures in the first substrate; and
exposing the TSV structures after removing the portion of the first substrate.
Shao discloses further comprising:
forming through substrate via (TSV) structures (120; Fig. 3A-3C; ¶ 0068 ”through-substrate-via (TSV) structures 120 are formed in the first substrate 102”) in the first substrate (102; Figs. 3A-3C; ¶ 0068 “through-substrate-via (TSV) structures 120 are formed in the first substrate 102”); and
exposing the TSV structures after removing the portion of the first substrate (Fig. 3C; ¶ 0079 “first substrate 102 is thinned from the second surface 102b until the TSV structure 120 is exposed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Ang as modified to have further comprising: forming through substrate via (TSV) structures in the first substrate; and exposing the TSV structures after removing the portion of the first substrate, as taught by Shao, in order to have “various packages with different or similar functions that are integrated together” (Shao ¶ 0003) to have a compact package structure and allowing for a smaller overall device.
Regarding Claim 15, Ang as modified by Huang does not disclose wherein the first die is sawed from a wafer.
Shao discloses wherein the first die (202; Fig. 3C; ¶ 0070) is sawed from a wafer (¶ 0070 “202 is an integrated circuit (IC) die which is sawed from a wafer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Ang as modified to have wherein the first die is sawed from a wafer, as taught by Shao, in order to have “various packages with different or similar functions that are integrated together” (Shao ¶ 0003) to have a compact package structure and allowing for a smaller overall device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 21-25 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art does not teach or render obvious after the planarization process, forming through substrate via (TSV) structures in the thinned first substrate, wherein one of the TSV structures is electrically connected to the first conductive plug and in the combination as claimed.
Claims 2-9 are allowable for depending on allowable Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art does not teach or render obvious bonding the first package structure to a second package structure, wherein the second package structure comprises a second substrate, and a second through substrate via (TSV) structures are in the second substrate and in the combination as claimed.
Claims 22-25 are allowable for depending on allowable Claim 21.
Claim 12 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.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art does not teach or render obvious wherein one of the TSV structures is connected to the first conductive plug. Therefore, the combination of the features of Claims 10, 11, and 12 is considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
In their amendment and response filed 6-30-2026, the applicant corrected Fig. 8A to address the Drawings Objection. Thank you for the corrections to Fig. 8A.
The applicant states (page 10 of 13) that “independent claim 10 has been amended to recite "wherein the second package structure comprises a second substrate, and a width of the second substrate is greater than a width of the first substrate."” In addition, the applicant states (page 11 of 13) that “claim 10 and its dependent claims are allowable.”
Amended independent Claim 10 is rejected over the Ang and Huang references, as explained supra.
Note that objected to dependent Claim 12 (and intervening Claim 11) was not included in the amendments to Claim 10.
Moreover, only some of the limitations of objected to dependent Claim 22 (that depends on Claim 21) were included in the amendments to Claim 10.
The applicant states (page 11 of 13) that “independent claim 21 has been amended to recite "wherein the second package structure comprises a second substrate, and a second through substrate via (TSV) structures are in the second substrate."” In addition, the applicant states (page 12 of 13) “claim 21 and its dependent claims are allowable.”
Amended independent Claim 21 and its dependent Claims 22-25 are allowed, as explained supra.
Independent Claim 10 is rejected for at least the reasons stated supra. Dependent Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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 Rose Keagy whose telephone number is (571) 270-3455. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm (CT).
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/R.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights