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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 through 15 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 through 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “micro-patterning in the planar bonding regions” recited in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Further, the “thermally stable sealant” recited in claim 8 is not identified in the provided figures. No new matter should be entered.
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:
Pgpub 2024/0258244 paragraph 17 recites “a misalignment exists between the substrates 205”. However, the substrates were previously identified as “201” and “202”. The examiner suggests, recites “a misalignment 205 exists between the substrates [”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the first and second surface” in lines 8 and 9. The tense is not appropriate, the examiner suggests “the first and second surfaces” or “the first surface and the second surface”.
Claim 3 recites “is disposed a scribe line” in line 2. The phrase omits a proposition, the examiner suggests “disposed in a scribe line”.
Claims 2 through 15 depend from and incorporate claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 through 15 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 first substrate" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second substrate" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the substrate surfaces" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the substrates" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the topographically inverse structures" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "both substrates" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surfaces" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mechanical alignment structures" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first mechanical alignment structures" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent is “a first mechanical alignment structure” in claim 1 line 5, which is not plural.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the mechanical alignment structures" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the substrate surfaces" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electrically conductive protrusions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the pads" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is unclear and ambiguous as to what structures are separated by the claimed pitch. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the pitch to be between adjacent protrusions and adjacent pad comprising grooves.
Claims 2 through 15 depend from and incorporate claim 1.
All claims should be reviewed for clarity and accordance with USC 112 2nd paragraph.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized and struck through claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016)
Regarding claim 1.
Leobandung teaches:
A method for mechanical self-alignment and slip-resistance in bonding semiconductor substrates, the method comprising:
providing a first semiconductor substrate (fig 3:312; [para 0029])with a first surface (fig 4:304; [para 0029]),and a second semiconductor substrate (fig 5:530; [para 0036]) with a second surface (fig 5:534; [para 0036]);
etching a first mechanical alignment structure (fig 4; [para 0029])into the first surface (fig 4:304; [para 0029]);
etching a second mechanical alignment structure (fig 7; [para 0038]) into the second surface (fig 5:534; [para 0036]), such that the first (fig 4; [para 0029])and second (fig 7; [para 0038])mechanical alignment structures are topographically inverse (fig 4,7);
aligning (fig 8; [para 0039]) the first substrate (fig 3:312; [para 0029]) to the second substrate (fig 5:530; [para 0036]), such that the first and second surface face one another (fig 8; [para 0039]);
bringing the substrate surfaces into contact (fig 8);
mechanically self-aligning the substrates (fig 8; [para 0041]), such that the topographically inverse structures inter-fit (fig 8; [para 0041]);
bonding both substrates (fig 8:530,312; [para 0041]) to form planar bonding regions between the surfaces and slanted bonding regions between the mechanical alignment structures (fig 8; [para 0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Leobandung does not teach optical aligning
Schellhammer teaches:
providing a first semiconductor substrate (fig 5:500; [para 00211]) with a first surface (fig 5) and a second semiconductor substrate (fig 3:100; [para 0020]) with a second surface;
optically aligning (fig 7; [para 0022]) the first substrate (fig 5:500; [para 00211]) to the second substrate (fig 3:100; [para 0020]), such that the first and second surface face one another (fig 7; [para 0022]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optically align the substrates in order to achieve suitable alignment tolerances before making surface contact (paragraph 22)
Regarding claim 5.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 1,
Leobandung teaches:
at least one of the mechanical alignment structures (fig 4; [para 0031])is vertically aligned with circuitry (fig 4:308; [para 0029]) of the first (fig 3,4:312; [para 0029]) or second semiconductor substrate (fig 3,4:312; [para 0029]).
Regarding claim 6.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 1,
Leobandung teaches:
the first (fig 3:304; [para 0029])and second (fig 7:534; [para 0036])surfaces each comprise at least one of the following materials: a dielectric material, an oxide, silicon ([para 0029,0036]), or an electrically conductive material.
Regarding claim 9.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 1, above
Leobandung teaches:
the first mechanical alignment structure (fig 4; [para 0031])has protrusions, each protrusion having a top and sides, and wherein the second mechanical alignment structure (fig 7; [para 0038])has grooves, each groove having a bottom and sidewalls.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 9, above
Leobandung teaches:
bringing the substrate surfaces (fig 4,7:304,534; [para 0028,0036]) into contact (fig 8; [para 0041]) comprises bringing the sides of the protrusions (fig 4; [para 0031])into contact with the sidewalls of the grooves (fig 7; [para 0038]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chen (US 2022/0310554)
Regarding claim 7.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 1, above
Leobandung teaches:
the first mechanical alignment structure (fig 4; [para 0029]) is bonded with the second mechanical alignment structure (fig 7; [para 0038]) .
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer does not teach the nature of the bond.
Chen teaches:
the first structure (fig 7:20; [para 0035]) is atomically bonded with the second structure (fig 7:120; [para 0035]) to form a hermetic seal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the bond comprises an atomic bond in order that bond is a secure and the conductive paths are continuous.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kuang (US 2021/0151353)
Regarding claim 8.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 1, above
Leobandung teaches:
the first (fig 4; [para 0029]) and second (fig 7; [para 0038]) mechanical alignment structures.
Leobandung does not teach a thermally stable sealant.
Kuang teaches.
a thermally stable sealant (fig 11:120,220; [para 0029]) is disposed in between the first (fig 11:116,118; [para 0031]) and second (fig 11:216,218; [para 0031]) structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a stable sealant in order to provide stress amelioration and protect the underlying layers (paragraph 16,31)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Williams (US 2007/0148818)
Regarding claim 10.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 9, above
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer does not teach the protrusions are conical frustrums and the grooves have curved sidewalls
Williams teaches:
the protrusions (fig 9:40’’’; [para 0054]) are inverted conical frustums (fig 4,9) and the grooves (fig 9:50’’’; [para 0054]) have curved sidewalls (fig 5,9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to facilitates receipt and alignment (paragraph 54)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Uehling (US 2013/0313726)
Regarding claim 11.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 9, above
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer does not teach a trapezoid shaped protrusion profile.
Ueling teaches:
the protrusions (fig 12:1106; [para 0049]) have a profile with a trapezoid shape (fig 11:1106; [para 0048]), and wherein the grooves (fig 11:1102; [para 0048]) have planar sidewalls (fig 11,12; [para 0048,0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide planar sidewalls and a trapezoid shape in order to increase the area of the contact surface per connecting structure thereby enable stronger bonds with fewer connecting structure due to the increase in surface area.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Oda (US 2021/0375791)
Regarding claim 12.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 9, above
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer does not teach the angle of the groove sidewall.
Oda teaches:
the sides and sidewalls each have an angle of thirty degrees, as measured from a line that is perpendicular to the top of the protrusion and the bottom of the groove (fig 4a:979; [para 0157]), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide groove sidewalls having a sidewall inclination angle of 30 degrees in order to accommodate by patterning using photoresist and etching (paragraph 79).
Further, Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum taper involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575,1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Chen (US 2022/0310554)
Regarding claim 14.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 9, above
Leobandung teaches
the first (fig 4:304; [para 0029]) and second surface (fig 5:534; [para 0036]) comprise a material, the sidewalls of the grooves comprise the same material, the bottoms of the grooves (fig 7; [para 0038]) comprise an electrically conductive pad (fig 7:532; [para 0038]), and the protrusions (fig 4; [para 0029]) comprise an electrically conductive material (fig 4:310; [para 0029]).
PNG
media_image2.png
310
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer does not teach the surface comprises a dielectric material.
Chen teaches:
the first (fig 6:42; [para 0035]) and second (fig 6:142; [para 0035]) surface comprise a dielectric material, the sidewalls of the grooves comprise the same dielectric material,
PNG
media_image3.png
383
407
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a dieletric surface in order to improve the interface bond and in order to provide insulation for conductive features at the surface.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) in view of Chen (US 2022/0310554) as applied to claim 14 and further Delacruz (US 2020/0388592)
Regarding claim 15.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 14, above
Leobandung teaches:
a pitch between the electrically conductive protrusions (fig 4 annotated above ; [para 0029]) and pads (fig 7 annotated above ; [para 0038])
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer in view of Chen does not teach a pitch between the electrically conductive protrusions and pads measures less than one-hundred fifty nanometers.
Delacruz teaches
a pitch between the electrically conductive pads (fig 5:316; [para 0045]) measures less than one-hundred fifty nanometers ([para 0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate conductive structures with a pitch of 150nm in order to provide more conductive contact per area thereby enabling denser connection.
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum pitch involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575,1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016)
Regarding claim 1.
Leobandung teaches:
A method for mechanical self-alignment and slip-resistance in bonding semiconductor substrates, the method comprising:
providing a first semiconductor substrate (fig 3:312; [para 0029])with a first surface (fig 3:304; [para 0029]) and a second semiconductor substrate (fig 5:530; [para 0036]) with a second surface (fig 5:534; [para 0036]);
etching a first mechanical alignment structure (fig 4:318; [para 0031])into the first surface (fig 4:304; [para 0029]);
etching a second mechanical alignment structure (fig 7:542a; [para 0038]) into the second surface (fig 7:534; [para 0036]), such that the first (fig 4:318; [para 0031])and second (fig 7:542a; [para 0038]) mechanical alignment structures are topographically inverse (fig 4,7);
aligning (fig 8; [para 0039]) the first substrate (fig 3:312; [para 0039]) to the second substrate (fig 5:530; [para 0039]), such that the first and second surface face one another (fig 8; [para 0039]);
bringing the substrate surfaces into contact (fig 8);
mechanically self-aligning the substrates (fig 8; [para 0041]), such that the topographically inverse structures inter-fit (fig 8; [para 0041]);
bonding both substrates (fig 8:530,312; [para 0041]) to form planar bonding regions between the surfaces and slanted bonding regions between the mechanical alignment structures (fig 8; [para 0041]).
PNG
media_image4.png
422
1142
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Leobandung does not teach optical aligning
Schellhammer teaches:
providing a first semiconductor substrate (fig 5:500; [para 00211]) with a first surface (fig 5) and a second semiconductor substrate (fig 3:100; [para 0020]) with a second surface;
optically aligning (fig 7; [para 0022]) the first substrate (fig 5:500; [para 00211]) to the second substrate (fig 3:100; [para 0020]), such that the first and second surface face one another (fig 7; [para 0022]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optically align the substrates in order to achieve suitable alignment tolerances before making surface contact (paragraph 22)
Regarding claim 2
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 1, further
Leobundung teaches:
at least the first semiconductor substrate (fig 2,3:100,312; [para 0027,0028]) is a wafer (fig 2,3:100; [para 0027,0028]), and the method further comprises dicing the first semiconductor substrate (fig 2,3:100; [para 0027]) to form a stacked semiconductor device assembly (fig 10:800; [para 0043]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Tang (US 2015/0270228).
Regarding claim 3.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 2, above
Leobandung teaches:
the first mechanical alignment structures (fig 4:318; [para 0031]) .
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer does not teach the first mechanical alignment structures is disposed a scribe line of the wafer.
Tang teaches:
the first alignment structures (fig 5:50; [para 0029]) is disposed a scribe line (fig 5:5; [para 0029]) of the wafer (fig 2:1; [para 0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the alignment mark in the scribe region in order that the marks do not interfere with patterning or processing of the active circuit area of the chip.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leobandung (US 2023/0378081) in view of Schellhammer (US 2013/0049016) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tang (US 2015/0270228).
Regarding claim 4.
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer teaches the method of claim 1, above
Leobandung teaches:
the first (fig 3:304; [para 0029]) and second (fig 7:534; [para 0036]) surfaces comprise the planar bonding regions (fig 3,7,8).
Leobandung in view of Schellhammer does not teach micro-patterning.
Tang teaches:
the surface comprises micro-patterning (fig 5:7; [para 0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a micro pattern in order to suppress cracking during cutting (paragraph 32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 - 19:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571)272-5055. 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.
/D.J.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights