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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “122” has been used to designate both a left top die and a right top die in figure 1 and reference character “124” has been used to designate both a left bottom die and a right bottom die in figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because FIGS. 2A-2I are not identified with the abbreviation FIG. followed by the number 2 followed by the corresponding capital letter. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not contain a reference character for the bottom left die shown in figures 2A-2I and the reference number 224 for the bottom right die is missing from figures 2D and 2G. The examiner notes that the specification appears to refer to the two bottom die shown in figures 2A-2I with reference number 224. See paragraph 16. The examiner also notes labelling the bottom left die with the reference character 224 would cause the same reference character to be used for different elements. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not contain a reference character for the top left die shown in figures 2F-2I and the reference number 222 for the top right die is missing from figure 2H. The examiner notes that the specification appears to refer to the two top die shown in figures 2F-2I with reference number 222. See paragraph 20. The examiner also notes labelling the top left die with the reference character 222 would cause the same reference character to be used for different elements. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the brief description of the drawing does not contain a brief description for each of the figures 2A-2I. “If the drawings show Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C and the brief description of the drawings refers only to Figure 1, the examiner should object to the brief description, and require applicant to provide a brief description of Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C.” See MPEP § 608.1(f).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 initially recites “a carrier substrate,” on page 3 line 1, however, claim 12 does not consistently refer to the carrier substrate. The examiner notes that claim 12 recites “the substrate,” on page 3 line 2 and “the carrier substrate,” on page 3 lines 4-5. For examination purposes, the substrate is understood to be the carrier substrate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13-15 are also objected to for containing the same limitation because claims 13-15 depend from claim 12.
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 1-12 and 19-20 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 the limitation “the protection layers,” on page 1 line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 1 previously recites “a protection layer,” on page 1 line 6 and that recitation of a protection layer does not provide antecedent basis for the protection layers. For examination purposes, the protection layers will be interpreted as the protection layer.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected for containing the limitation because claims 2-12 depend from claim 1.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” renders claim 1 indefinite because the level to which the inter-die gap is filled by the gap fill layer is unclear. For examination purposes, a gap fill layer disposed over the protection layers and substantially filling the inter-die gap will be interpreted as a gap fill layer disposed over the protection layer and filling the inter-die gap.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected for containing the limitation because claims 2-12 depend from claim 1.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” renders claim 2 indefinite because the relationship of the thickness of the first die and the second die is unclear. For examination purposes, a thickness of the first and second die are substantially equal will be interpreted as a thickness of the first and second die are equal.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the first die comprises a top die and a bottom die and the second die comprises a top die and a bottom die,” on page 1 lines 13-14. This limitation render claim 3 indefinite because it is unclear how a single die, such as the first die or the second die, can include two dies. For examination purposes, wherein the first die comprises a top die and a bottom die and the second die comprises a top die and a bottom die will be interpreted as further comprising a third die located above the first die and a fourth die located above the second die.
The term “approximately” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” renders claim 5 indefinite because the end points of the range of distances for a spacing between the first die and the second die is unclear. For examination purposes, a spacing between the first and second die ranges from approximately 50 micrometers to approximately 300 micrometers will be interpreted as a spacing between the first and second die ranges from 50 micrometers to 300 micrometers.
Claim 6 recites “the protection layers,” on page 2 line 1, claim 7 recites “the protection layers,” on page 2 line 4, claim 8 recites “the protection layers,” on page 2 lines 8-9, and claim 10 recites “the protection layers,” on page 2 lines 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The examiner notes the claim 1 previously recites “a protection layer,” on page 1 line 6 and that recitation of a protection layer does not provide antecedent basis for the protection layers. For examination purposes, the protection layers will be interpreted as the protection layer.
The term “approximately” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” renders claim 8 indefinite because the range of thicknesses of the protection layer is unclear. For examination purposes, a thickness of the protection layers range from approximately 0.1 micrometers to approximately 20 micrometers will be interpreted as a thickness of the protection layer ranges from 0.1 micrometers to 20 micrometers.
Claim 9 is also rejected for containing this limitation because claim 9 depends from claim 8.
The term “approximately” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” renders claim 9 indefinite because the variability of the thickness of the protection layer is unclear. For examination purposes, the protection layer thicknesses have a variability of less than approximately 5% will be interpreted as the protection layer thickness has a variability of less than 5%.
The term “approximately” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” renders claim 19 indefinite because the range of thicknesses of the protection layer is unclear. For examination purposes, a thickness of the protection layer ranges from approximately 0.1 micrometers to approximately 20 micrometers will be interpreted as a thickness of the protection layer ranges from 0.1 micrometers to 20 micrometers.
Claim 20 is also rejected for containing this limitation because claim 20 depends from claim 19.
The term “approximately” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” renders claim 20 indefinite because the variability of the thickness of the protection layer is unclear. For examination purposes, the protection layer thicknesses has a variability of less than approximately 5% will be interpreted as the protection layer thickness has a variability of less than 5%.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (US 2024/0055371).
Regarding Claim 1:
Yeh discloses a system-on-chip structure comprising:
a substrate (carrier substrate, See figs. 2-3, 17, ref. no. 102 and paragraph 30-31);
first and second die disposed over a surface of the substrate (left integrated circuit die and right integrated circuit die, See figs. 2-3, 17, ref. no. 50A and paragraphs 31-32) and separated by an inter-die gap (gap between the left integrated circuit die and right integrated circuit die, See fig. 2, ref. no. 50A);
a protection layer (crack stopper structure, See figs. 3, 17, ref. no. 106, paragraph 35 and 82) disposed over a sidewall of each of the first and second die; and
a gap fill layer (gap-filling dielectric, See figs. 3, 17, ref. no. 108 and paragraphs 35-36) disposed over the protection layers and substantially filling the inter-die gap.
Regarding Claim 2:
Yeh discloses wherein a thickness of the first and second die are substantially equal (the left integrated circuit die and the right integrated circuit die are shown having the same thickness in figures 2 and 3, See fig. 2-3, ref. no. 50A. Additionally, a single thickness is used to the refer to the thickness of the left integrate circuit die and the right integrated circuit die in paragraph 37. See paragraph 37).
Regarding Claim 3:
Yeh discloses wherein the first die comprises a top die (top left integrated circuit die, See figs. 15, 17, ref. no. 50B and paragraph 76) and a bottom die (bottom left integrated circuit die, See figs. 15, 17, ref. no. 50A) and the second die comprises a top die (top right integrated circuit die, See figs. 15, 17, ref. no. 50B and paragraph 76) and a bottom die (bottom right integrated circuit die, See figs. 15, 17, ref. no. 50A).
Regarding Claim 4:
Yeh discloses wherein the first and second die each comprise a processor (CPU, See paragraphs 17 and 31).
Regarding Claim 6:
Yeh discloses wherein the protection layers comprise a dielectric material (silicon nitride, See paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 7:
Yeh discloses wherein the protection layers comprise a dielectric material selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride (silicon nitride, See paragraph 41), titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide.
Regarding Claim 8:
Yeh discloses wherein a thickness of the protection layers range from approximately 0.1 micrometers to approximately 20 micrometers (the crack stopper structure may have a thickness between about 3000 angstroms and 5000 angstroms, See paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 9:
Yeh discloses the protection layer thicknesses have a variability of less than approximately 5% (a thickness of 5000 angstroms, See paragraph 41. The examiner notes that a thickness of the crack stopper structure must be within the claimed variation of 5% or the thickness would no longer be at that thickness. For example, a thickness of 5025 angstroms is not a thickness of 5000 angstroms).
Regarding Claim 10:
Yeh discloses wherein the protection layers are configured to inhibit crack formation in the first and second die (the crack stopper structure provides a stress relief point for cracks to stop at, See paragraph 16).
Regarding Claim 11:
Yeh discloses wherein the gap fill layer comprises a dielectric material (silicon oxide, See paragraph 36).
Regarding Claim 12:
Yeh discloses wherein the gap fill layer comprises a dielectric material selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide (silicon oxide, See paragraph 36) and silicon nitride.
Regarding Claim 13:
Yeh discloses system-on-chip structure comprising:
a carrier substrate (carrier substrate, See fig. 2, ref. no. 102 and paragraphs 30-31);
a die (left integrated circuit die, See fig. 3, ref. no. 50A, and paragraphs 31-32) disposed over a surface of the substrate;
a protection layer (crack stopper structure along the sides of the integrated circuit die, See fig. 3, ref. no. 106 and paragraph 35) disposed over a sidewall of the die; and
a gap fill layer (a gap-fill dielectric over the crack stopper structure, See fig. 3, ref. no. 108, and paragraph 36) disposed over the protection layer and over a surface of the carrier substrate proximate to the die.
Regarding Claim 14:
Yeh discloses wherein the protection layer comprises a first dielectric material (silicon nitride, See paragraph 41) and the gap fill layer comprises a second dielectric material (silicon oxide, See paragraph 36).
Regarding Claim 15:
Yeh discloses wherein a density of the protection layer (density silicon nitride, See paragraph 41) is greater than a density of the gap fill layer (density of silicon oxide, See paragraph 36). (The examiner notes that silicon nitride Si3N4 has a density of 3.17 ρ /g cm-3 and that silicon oxide is understood to refer to silicon dioxide (vitreous) SiO2 which has a density of 2.196 ρ /g cm-3, thus, silicon nitride has a greater density than silicon oxide.).
Regarding Claim 16:
Yeh discloses a method comprising:
positioning a semiconductor die on carrier wafer (placing integrated circuit dies on a carrier substrate, See fig. 2, ref. nos. 50A, 102, fig. 10A, ref. no. 12, paragraphs 30-31 and 40);
forming a protection layer over a sidewall of the semiconductor die (forming a crack stopper structure along the sides of the integrated circuit dies, See fig. 3, ref. no. 106, fig. 10A , ref. no. 14, paragraphs 35 and 40); and
forming a gap fill layer over the carrier wafer adjacent to the semiconductor die and over the protection layer (forming a gap-fill dielectric over the crack stopper structure, See fig. 3, ref. no. 108, fig. 10A, ref. no. 16, paragraphs 36 and 40).
Regarding Claim 17:
Yeh discloses wherein forming the protection layer comprises atomic layer deposition (the crack stopper structure may be formed by atomic layer deposition, See paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 18:
Yeh discloses wherein the protection layer comprises a dielectric material selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride (silicon nitride, See paragraph 41), titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide.
Regarding Claim 19:
Yeh discloses wherein a thickness of the protection layer ranges from approximately 0.1 micrometers to approximately 20 micrometers (the crack stopper structure may have a thickness between about 3000 angstroms and 5000 angstroms, See paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 20:
Yeh wherein the protection layer thicknesses have a variability of less than approximately 5% (a thickness of 5000 angstroms, See paragraph 41. The examiner notes that a thickness of the crack stopper structure must be within the claimed variation of 5% or the thickness would no longer be at that thickness. For example, a thickness of 5025 angstroms is not a thickness of 5000 angstroms).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 2024/0055371) in view of Yeh et al. (US 2023/0378012) hereinafter Yeh ‘012.
Regarding Claim 5:
Yeh discloses the above stated system-on-chip structure.
Yeh does not discloses a spacing between the first and second die ranges from approximately 50 micrometers to approximately 300 micrometers.
Yeh ‘012 discloses a spacing between the first and second die ranges from approximately 50 micrometers to approximately 300 micrometers (the width of gap-filling dielectric is at 50 µm, See fig. 6, ref. no. 106, figs. 7A-7B, ref. nos. W1 and paragraph 47. The width of gap-filling dielectric is understood to correspond to the width of the gap between integrated circuit dies 50A.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system-on-chip structure of Yeh to include a spacing between the first and second die ranges from approximately 50 micrometers to approximately 300 micrometers as taught by Yeh ‘012 in order provide more space cut apart the integrated circuit packages.
The examiner also notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to space apart the left integrated circuit die and the right integrated circuit in range from approximately 50 micrometers to approximately 300 micrometers in order provide more space cut apart the integrated circuit packages, since it has been 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. See 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).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 2024/0055371) in view of Kimua et al. (US 2017/0330785).
Regarding Claim 7:
Yeh discloses the above stated system-on-chip structure.
Yeh does not disclose the protection layers comprise a dielectric material selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide.
Kimua discloses a semiconductor backside protective film that can include alumina to reduce cracking that would occur during dicing (See figs. 2-3, ref. no. 11, paragraphs 21-25 and 43. The examiner notes that alumina is understood to refer to an aluminum oxide Al2O3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system-on-chip structure of Yeh to include a protective layer containing aluminum oxide as taught by Kimua since it has been held that the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (The examiner also notes that the applicant has created a genus of equivalency among the recited dielectric materials with each dielectric material being obvious over the others.)
Regarding Claim 18:
Yeh discloses the above stated method.
Yeh does not disclose the protection layers comprise a dielectric material selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide.
Kimua discloses a semiconductor backside protective film that can include alumina to reduce cracking that would occur during dicing (See figs. 2-3, ref. no. 11, paragraphs 21-25 and 43. The examiner notes that alumina is understood to refer to an aluminum oxide Al2O3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yeh to include a protective layer containing aluminum oxide as taught by Kimua since it has been held that the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (The examiner also notes that the applicant has created a genus of equivalency among the recited dielectric materials with each dielectric material being obvious over the others.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT SQUIRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899