Attorney Docket Number: TSMP20231291US02
Filing Date: 1/03/2024
Priority Dates: 8/21/2023 (PRO 63/520,727)
12/11/2023 (PRO 63/608,674)
Inventors: Chung et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments filed 7/02/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as to 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 a 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.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3, filed 7/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended claims 8 and 18. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-20. New grounds of rejection are presented below, however, as necessitated by applicant’s arguments/amendments to the claims.
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 dielectric deposition process being performed in a deposition chamber and further wherein the parameter is a ratio of precursor gasses introduced into the deposition chamber during the dielectric deposition process must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…filling the trench with an gas…” is improper. For the purposes of examination, the line will be construed to recite “…filling the trench with a gas…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “the gas being selected from the group consisting of air, nitrogen, a noble gas, an inert gas, and combinations of same.” However, the specification (see, e.g., paragraph 41) teaches the cavity is filled with ‘nitrogen, argon, or the like’, and is silent regarding the combinations of such gases. Therefore, the claimed arrangement of claim 5 wherein the gas is selected from these combinations of the aforementioned gases constitutes new matter. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be construed to recite the line “the gas being selected from an inert gas such as nitrogen, argon, or the like”.
Claim 12 recites “a gas selected from the group consisting of air, an inert gas, a noble gas, nitrogen, and combinations of same.” However, the specification (see, e.g., paragraph 41) teaches the cavity is filled with ‘nitrogen, argon, or the like’, and is silent regarding the combinations of such gases. Therefore, the claimed arrangement of claim 12 wherein the gas is selected from these combinations of the aforementioned gases constitutes new matter. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be construed to recite the line “the gas being selected from an inert gas such as nitrogen, argon, or the like”.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the gas-filled cavity is filled with a fluid selected from the group consisting of air, nitrogen, a noble gas, an inert gas, and combinations of the same.” However, the specification (see, e.g., paragraph 41) teaches the cavity is filled with ‘nitrogen, argon, or the like’, and is silent regarding the combinations of such gases. Therefore, the claimed arrangement of claim 20 wherein the gas-filled cavity is filled with combinations of the aforementioned gases constitutes new matter. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be construed to recite the line “wherein the gas-filled cavity is filled with an inert gas such as nitrogen, argon, or the like”.
The applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim, or demonstrate explicit support for the claimed subject matter in the original disclosure (e.g., by citing specific excerpts from related sections of Specification or related features in Drawings, as filed). A broad statement alleging support for the claimed subject matter, or relying on unrelated disclosure for support, will be considered non-persuasive.
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 9-10, 12, 14, and 16-18 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 9 recites the limitation “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…” will be interpreted as “wherein the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity”, as in independent claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…” will be interpreted as “…wherein the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity…”, as in independent claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…filling the stress-compensating cavity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…filling the stress-compensating cavity…” will be interpreted as “…filling the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity…”, as in independent claim 8.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…” will be interpreted as “…wherein the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity…”, as in independent claim 8.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…wherein the stress-compensating cavity…” will be interpreted as “…wherein the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity…”, as in independent claim 8.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…forming the stress-compensating cavity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…forming the stress-compensating cavity…” will be interpreted as “…forming the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity…”, as in independent claim 8.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “…wherein the cavity…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of furthering examination, “…wherein the cavity…” will be interpreted as “…wherein the gas-filled cavity…”, as in independent claim 18.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yu (US 10153222 B2) in view of Uzoh (US 20190189607 A1) further in view of Kawahara (US 20210083059 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu (see, e.g., fig. 8) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method of forming a packaged device (e.g., device of fig. 8):
Bonding (see, e.g., paragraph 31) a top die (e.g., die 68) to a bottom substrate (e.g., Redistribution structure 76 of components 96);
Depositing a protective layer (e.g., encapsulant 112) over the bottom substrate (e.g., Redistribution structure 76 of components 96) and around the top die (e.g., die 68), and;
Stress arising from a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch (see, e.g., paragraph 10 “…stress and warpage from the coefficient of thermal mismatch…” + paragraph 35 “…coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch between the components 96 and the subsequently formed encapsulant 112”) between the protective layer (e.g., encapsulant 112) and a component (e.g., components of components 96) of the packaged device (e.g., device of fig. 8);
Yu (see, e.g., fig. 8), however, fails to explicitly show the protective layer is a dielectric layer and the deposition is done by a dielectric deposition process, while it also fails to show forming a cavity in the dielectric layer, the cavity being adjacent at least one side of the top die, wherein the cavity is configured to alleviate stress on the top die arising from a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch between the dielectric layer and a component of the packaged device.
Uzoh (see, e.g., figs. 2A-2B), in a similar device to Yu, teaches depositing a protective layer (e.g., first layer 12 + paragraph 44 “The first layer 12 of protective material”) is a dielectric layer (e.g., first layer 12 + paragraph 34 “…the first layer 12 can comprise…silicon oxide, silicon nitride”) is done by a dielectric deposition process (see, e.g., paragraph 30 “…the first layer 12 may be deposited by slip casting methods, screen printing or coating or spin coating…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the dielectric material and deposition process of Uzoh within the configuration of Yu, as dielectric material was a well-known material to include within a protection layer at the time of filing the invention, and the deposition process was a well-known technique to include as a methodology of fabricating said dielectric material, as taught by Uzoh (see, e.g., paragraphs 30-44 of Uzoh).
Yu in view of Uzoh, however, fails to teach forming a cavity in the dielectric layer, wherein the cavity being adjacent at least one side of the top die, wherein the cavity is configured to alleviate stress on the top die.
Kawahara (see, e.g., fig. 6B), in a similar device to Yu in view of Uzoh, teaches forming a cavity (e.g., air gap 46) in a dielectric layer (e.g., insulating member 41 + paragraph 51 “…The insulating member 41 is formed of an insulating material such as silicon oxide…”), wherein the cavity (e.g., air gap 46) is configured to alleviate stress (see, e.g., paragraph 66 “…the air gap 46 absorbs stress applied to the semiconductor device…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the stress-reduction airgap of Kawahara within the dielectric layer of Yu in view of Uzoh, in order to achieve the expected result of even further reducing the stress profile originating from the CTE mismatch (see, e.g., paragraphs 10 or 35 of Yu) within the device (see, e.g., paragraph 66 of Kawahara).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara and Yu (US 20210376072 A1)(hereinafter Yu2).
Regarding claim 2, Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara fails to teach wherein the step forming the cavity in the dielectric layer comprises: adjusting a parameter of the dielectric deposition process, during the step of depositing the dielectric layer.
Yu2 (see, e.g., figs. 25-27), in a similar device to Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara, teaches wherein a step of forming a cavity (e.g., air gap 282) in a dielectric layer (e.g., dielectric layer 284A) comprises: adjusting a parameter (see, e.g., paragraph 54 “…one or more parameter[s] of the deposition process 320 may be adjusted to form the air gap 282 in the dielectric layer 284A”) of a dielectric deposition process (e.g., deposition process 320), during a step (see, e.g., paragraph 54 “In some embodiments, for example, increasing the rate at which the dielectric layer 284A is deposited (by PVD and/or other deposition methods) causes the top opening of the trench 280 to merge more quickly than the bulk of the trench 280 being filled, resulting in the creation of the air gap 282 trapped in the dielectric layer 284A.”) of depositing the dielectric layer (e.g., dielectric layer 284A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the parameter adjustment of Yu2 within the deposition process of Yu2 in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara, as the parameter adjustment (deposition rate increase, see paragraph 54 of Yu2) was a well-known technique at the time of filing the invention to include within a dielectric deposition process to form an air cavity within the boundary of said dielectric layer.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara and Cheng (US 10446504 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara fails to explicitly teach forming the cavity in the dielectric layer to surround the top die.
Cheng (see, e.g., fig. 3J), in a similar device to Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara, teaches a cavity/plurality of cavities (e.g., holes 126) surround a top chip (e.g., first chip 150).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the plurality of cavities of Cheng within the air gap arrangement of Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara (within the surrounding dielectric layers 112), in order to achieve the expected result of expanding the stress reduction profile originating from thermal expansion coefficient mismatches within the device (see, e.g., paragraph 61 of Cheng) through increasing the number of airgap cavities around the die.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches forming the cavity (e.g., holes 126) in a dielectric layer (e.g., protective layer 230 + paragraph 35) adjacent and laterally displaced from each side of the top chip (e.g., first chip 150).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the lateral and adjacent placement of Cheng within the air gap arrangement of Yu in view of Uzoh further in view of Kawahara and Cheng, in order to achieve the expected result of providing an even and lateral stress reduction profile originating within the device (see, e.g., paragraph 61 of Cheng). Also the view the comments above with respect to the rejection of claim 6, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yu (US 10153222 B2) in view of Kawahara.
Regarding claim 18, Yu (see, e.g., fig. 8) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a packaged device (e.g., device of fig. 8):
A bottom substrate (e.g., Redistribution structure 76 of components 96);
An integrated circuit die (e.g., die 68) bonded to a bottom substrate (e.g., Redistribution structure 76 of components 96)
A protective layer (e.g., encapsulant 112) over the bottom substrate (e.g., Redistribution structure 76 of components 96) and at least partially surrounding the integrated circuit die (e.g., die 68), and;
Stress arising from a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch (see, e.g., paragraph 10 “…stress and warpage from the coefficient of thermal mismatch…” + paragraph 35 “…coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch between the components 96 and the subsequently formed encapsulant 112”) between the protective layer (e.g., encapsulant 112) and a component (e.g., components of components 96) of the packaged device (e.g., device of fig. 8);
Yu (see, e.g., fig. 8), however, fails to explicitly show the protective layer is a dielectric layer, while it also fails to show forming a gas-filled cavity in the dielectric layer, the gas-filled cavity being adjacent at least one side of the top die, wherein the gas-filled cavity is configured to alleviate stress on the top die arising from a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch between the dielectric layer and a component of the packaged device.
Kawahara (see, e.g., fig. 6B), in a similar device to Yu, teaches forming a gas-filled cavity (e.g., air gap 46) in a dielectric layer (e.g., insulating member 41 + paragraph 51 “…The insulating member 41 is formed of an insulating material such as silicon oxide…”), wherein the cavity is configured to alleviate stress (see, e.g., paragraph 66 “…the air gap 46 absorbs stress applied to the semiconductor device…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the stress-reduction airgap of Kawahara within the dielectric layer of Yu, in order to achieve the expected result of reducing the stress profile originating from the CTE mismatch (see, e.g., paragraphs 10 or 35 of Yu) within the device (see, e.g., paragraph 66 of Kawahara).
Regarding claim 19, Yu in view of Kawahara teaches wherein the gas-filled cavity (e.g., air gap 46 of Kawahara) is formed adjacent a corner (e.g., note that the air gap 46 is disposed within the modified dielectric layer 112, and layer 112 expands across the entire sidewall of die 68, see fig. 8 of Yu) of the integrated circuit die (e.g., die 68).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yu in view of Kawahara in view of Liao (US 20210391261 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Yu in view of Kawahara fails to teach “…wherein the gas-filled cavity is filled with an inert gas such as nitrogen, argon, or the like.
Liao (see, e.g., fig. 4), in a similar device to Yu in view of Kawahara, teaches a gas-filled cavity (e.g., cavity 120 + paragraph 19 or 20) is filled with an inert gas such as nitrogen (see, e.g., paragraph 19 “…the cavities 120, may, for example, comprise…nitrogen…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the nitrogen of Liao within the air gap of Yu in view of Kawahara, as nitrogen was a well-known gas to include within an airgap-cavity at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Liao.
Claims 8, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Haba (US 20210407941 A1) in view of Kawahara.
Regarding claim 8, Haba (see, e.g., fig. 5A) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method of forming a packaged device:
An integrated circuit die (e.g., element 2 + paragraph 31 “…the element 2 (e.g., a die)…)”) on a substrate (e.g., carrier 3);
Embedding the integrated circuit die (e.g., element 2 + paragraph 31 “…the element 2 (e.g., a die)…)”) within a protective material (e.g., protective material 7), and;
Forming a cavity (e.g., seam 15) within the protective material (e.g., protective material 7), the cavity (e.g., seam 15) being adjacent at least one side of the integrated circuit die (e.g., element 2 + paragraph 31 “…the element 2 (e.g., a die)…)”);
While the current embodiment of Haba fails to explicitly disclose the integrated circuit die was mounted onto the substrate, an alternate embodiment within Haba (see, e.g., fig. 18A) teaches mounting (see, e.g., paragraph 65 “For example, one or two integrated device dies 102 can be mounted to the carrier 103, or more than three integrated device dies 102 can be mounted to the carrier”) an integrated circuit die (e.g., integrated device die 102) to a substrate (e.g., carrier 103).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the mounting of the alternate embodiment within the forming of the current embodiment of Haba, as mounting was a well-known step at the time of filing the invention to integrate a die to a carrier within a protective structure, as taught by the alternate embodiment.
Haba (see, e.g., fig. 4), however, fails to show the cavity is a gas-filled stress-compensating cavity.
Kawahara (see, e.g., fig. 6B), in a similar device to Haba, teaches a cavity (e.g., air gap 46) is a gas-filled (e.g., air of air gap 46) stress-compensating cavity (see, e.g., paragraph 66 “…the air gap 46 absorbs stress applied to the semiconductor device…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the stress-compensation air gap arrangement of Kawahara within the seam of Haba, in order to achieve the expected result of reducing the stress profile within the device (see, e.g., paragraph 66 of Kawahara).
Regarding claim 11, Haba (see, e.g., fig. 5A) shows planarizing a top surface (see, e.g., paragraph 40 “the upper surfaces of the conformal protective material 7 can be removed, e.g., by etching, lapping, grinding, polishing…”) of the protective material (e.g., protective material 7) to be level with a top surface (see, e.g., fig. 5A) of the integrated circuit die (e.g., element 2 + paragraph 31 “…the element 2 (e.g., a die)…)”).
Regarding claim 13, Haba (see, e.g., paragraph 38, note that fig. 4A is an earlier ‘stage’ of fig. 5A) shows direct bonding (see, e.g., paragraph 38 “FIG. 4A is a schematic side view of a plurality of elements 2 directly bonded to a carrier 3”) the integrated circuit die (e.g., element 2 + paragraph 31 “…the element 2 (e.g., a die)…)”) to the substrate (e.g., carrier 3).
Regarding claim 15, an alternate embodiment of Haba (see, e.g., fig. 1B) teaches wherein the step of embedding the integrated circuit die (e.g., element 2 + paragraph 31 “…the element 2 (e.g., a die)…)”) within the protective material (e.g., protective material 7) includes depositing (see, e.g., paragraph 33) the protective material (e.g., protective material 7) around the integrated circuit die (e.g., element 2 + paragraph 31 “…the element 2 (e.g., a die)…)”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the depositing-around-die step of the alternate embodiment of Haba within the current embodiment of Haba, as applying the protective material around the integrated circuit die was a well-known technique at the time of filing the invention to embed a die within the protective material, as taught by the alternate embodiment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Haba in view of Kawahara further in view of Yu2.
Regarding claim 9, Haba in view of Kawahara fails to teach wherein the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity is formed within the protective material during the step of embedding the integrated circuit die within the protective material.
Yu2 (see, e.g., figs. 25-27), in a similar device to Haba in view of Kawahara, teaches wherein a step of forming a gas-filled cavity (e.g., air gap 282) within a protective material (e.g., dielectric layer 284A) is performed (see, e.g., paragraph 54 “…one or more parameter[s] of the deposition process 320 may be adjusted to form the air gap 282 in the dielectric layer 284A”) during a step (see, e.g., paragraph 54 “In some embodiments, for example, increasing the rate at which the dielectric layer 284A is deposited (by PVD and/or other deposition methods) causes the top opening of the trench 280 to merge more quickly than the bulk of the trench 280 being filled, resulting in the creation of the air gap 282 trapped in the dielectric layer 284A.”) of depositing the dielectric layer (e.g., dielectric layer 284A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the parameter adjustment of Yu2 within the deposition process of Haba in view of Kawahara, as the deposition methodology (deposition rate increase, see paragraph 54 of Yu2) was a well-known technique at the time of filing the invention to include within a dielectric deposition process to form an air cavity within the boundary of said dielectric layer. Note that the cavity is formed within the protective material during the dielectric deposition process around the integrated circuit die, hence the cavity is formed during the embedding step.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Haba in view of Kawahara further in view of Liao.
Liao (see, e.g., fig. 4), in a similar device to Haba in view of Kawahara, teaches a gas-filled cavity (e.g., cavity 120 + paragraph 19 or 20) is filled with an inert gas such as nitrogen (see, e.g., paragraph 19 “…the cavities 120, may, for example, comprise…nitrogen…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the nitrogen of Liao within the air gap of Haba in view of Kawahara, as nitrogen was a well-known gas to include within an airgap-cavity at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Liao.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Haba in view of Kawahara further in view of Nitta (US 20020040994 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Haba in view of Kawahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity is configured to deform in shape in response to thermal expansion of the protective material.
Nitta (see, e.g., fig. 19), in a similar device to Haba in view of Kawahara, teaches a cavity (e.g., void 102a) is configured to deform in shape in response to thermal expansion (see, e.g., paragraph 7 “In addition, there are cases where thermal expansion and shrinkage are repeated in the vicinity of the void 102a due to temperature change”) of a protective material (e.g., insulating film 103).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the shape deformation configuration of Nitta within the gas-filled stress-compensating cavity arrangement of Haba in view of Kawahara, in order to achieve the expected result of providing the possibility of air gap geometrical-modification after the initial cavity fabrication step within the device as desired. In addition, note that the protective material and cavity layout of Nitta is a substantially similar material to that of Haba in view of Kawahara, hence the thermal expansion-cavity deformation relationship should be substantially similar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
Claims 10, 14, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the primary art of record, Yu (US 10153222 B2) in view of Uzoh (US 20190189607 A1) further in view of Kawahara (US 20210083059 A1) and Yu (US 20210376072 A1)(hereinafter Yu2) fails to disclose or suggest wherein the dielectric deposition process is performed in a deposition chamber and further wherein the parameter is a ratio of precursor gasses introduced into the deposition chamber during the dielectric deposition process.. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 4, the primary art of record, Yu (US 10153222 B2) in view of Uzoh (US 20190189607 A1) further in view of Kawahara (US 20210083059 A1) fails to disclose or suggest wherein the step of forming the cavity in the dielectric layer comprises: etching a trench in a surface of the dielectric layer; and bonding the surface of the dielectric layer to a surface of the bottom substrate, simultaneously with the step of bonding the top die to the bottom substrate.
These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights