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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on March 25, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 18, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Semiconductor Device With Stress Tuning Structure and Method For Fabricating the Same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2016/0197049). Claim 1, Chen discloses (Fig. 9) a semiconductor device, comprising: a first wafer (100, package component comprising a device wafer, Para [0013]), comprising: a first substrate (102, semiconductor substrate, Para [0013]); a stress tuning structure (109/110, etch stop layer/surface dielectric layer, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) considered stress tuning structure as the etch stop layer prevents fracturing of wafer during processing, Para [0017], hereinafter “stress”) disposed on the first substrate (stress is on 102), wherein the stress tuning structure (stress) comprises a first oxide layer (109 may be silicon oxide, Para [0017]) and a second oxide layer (110 may be silicon oxynitride, Para [0017]) sequentially disposed on the first substrate (109 and 110 are sequentially formed on 102), and a first refractive index of the first oxide layer is different from a second refractive index of the second oxide layer (since 109 and 110 are different materials they would have different refractive indices); and a first bonding structure (130, metal pads which will be bonded, Para [0029]) disposed on the stress tuning structure (130 is on stress); and a second wafer (200, package component, Para [0028]), comprising: a second substrate (202, substrate, Para [0028]); and a second bonding structure (230, metal pads will be bonded, Para [0029]) disposed on the second substrate (230 is on bottom surface of 202), wherein the second bonding structure is bonded with the first bonding structure (230 is bonded to 130, Para [0029]).
Claim 7, Chen discloses (Fig. 9) the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the stress tuning structure (stress) has a thickness in a vertical direction (vertical thickness of stress, hereinafter “t1”), the stress tuning structure (stress) further comprises a metal layer (118, metallic material, Para [0024]) disposed in the first oxide layer and the second oxide layer (118 is disposed in 109 and 110), the metal layer has a third sub-thickness in the vertical direction (118 has a vertical thickness, hereinafter “t3”), and the third sub-thickness is equal to the thickness of the stress tuning structure (t3 has same vertical thickness as t1). Claim 11, Chen discloses (Fig. 9) a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising: providing a first wafer (100, package component comprising a device wafer, Para [0013]), wherein the first wafer comprises a first substrate (102, semiconductor substrate, Para [0013]), a stress tuning structure (109/110, etch stop layer/surface dielectric layer, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) considered stress tuning structure as the etch stop layer prevents fracturing of wafer during processing, Para [0017], hereinafter “stress”) disposed on the first substrate (stress is on 102) and a first bonding structure (130, metal pads which will be bonded, Para [0029]) disposed on the stress tuning structure (130 is on stress), the stress tuning structure comprises a first oxide layer (109 may be silicon oxide, Para [0017]) and a second oxide layer (110 may be silicon oxynitride, Para [0017]) sequentially disposed on the first substrate (109 and 110 are sequentially formed on 102), and a first refractive index of the first oxide layer is different from a second refractive index of the second oxide layer (since 109 and 110 are different materials they would have different refractive indices); providing a second wafer (200, package component, Para [0028]), wherein the second wafer comprises a second substrate (202, substrate, Para [0028]) and a second bonding structure (230, metal pads will be bonded, Para [0029]) disposed on the second substrate (230 is on bottom surface of 202); and bonding the second bonding structure with the first bonding structure (230 is bonded to 130, Para [0029]).
Claim 17, Chen discloses (Fig. 9) the method of claim 11, wherein the stress tuning structure (stress) has a thickness in a vertical direction (vertical thickness of stress, hereinafter “t1”), the stress tuning structure (stress) further comprises a metal layer (118, metallic material, Para [0024]) disposed in the first oxide layer and the second oxide layer (118 is disposed in 109 and 110), the metal layer has a third sub-thickness in the vertical direction (118 has a vertical thickness, hereinafter “t3”), and the third sub-thickness is equal to the thickness of the stress tuning structure (t3 has same vertical thickness as t1).
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(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2016/0197049) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2021/0217716).
Claim 2, Chen discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the stress tuning structure has a thickness in a vertical direction, and the thickness ranges from 2000 angstroms to 4000 angstroms. However, Wu discloses (Fig. 1E) a dielectric structure (850/872, etch stop dielectric/via-level dielectric, Para [0031] – [0032]) where 850 has a thickness of 5 nm to 30 nm and 872 has a thickness of 100 nm to 600 nm with a total thickness of 105 nm to 630 nm. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of layer thickness (result effective at least insofar as the layer thickness affects the characteristics such as refractive index and etch stopping of the layers) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 30 nm and 110 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 120 nm. Claim 3, Chen discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first oxide layer has a first sub-thickness in a vertical direction, the second oxide layer has a second sub-thickness in the vertical direction, and a ratio of the second sub-thickness to the first sub-thickness ranges from 0.25 to 4. However, Wu discloses (Fig. 1E) a dielectric structure (850/872, etch stop dielectric/via-level dielectric, Para [0031] – [0032]) where 850 has a thickness of 5 nm to 30 nm and 872 has a thickness of 100 nm to 600 nm with a total thickness of 105 nm to 630 nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of layer thickness (result effective at least insofar as the layer thickness affects the characteristics such as refractive index and etch stopping of the layers) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 30 nm and 110 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 120 nm, resulting in a ratio of 4.
Claim 12, Chen discloses the method of claim 11. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the stress tuning structure has a thickness in a vertical direction, and the thickness ranges from 2000 angstroms to 4000 angstroms. However, Wu discloses (Fig. 1E) a dielectric structure (850/872, etch stop dielectric/via-level dielectric, Para [0031] – [0032]) where 850 has a thickness of 5 nm to 30 nm and 872 has a thickness of 100 nm to 600 nm with a total thickness of 105 nm to 630 nm. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of layer thickness (result effective at least insofar as the layer thickness affects the characteristics such as refractive index and etch stopping of the layers) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 30 nm and 110 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 120 nm. Claim 13, Chen discloses the method of claim 11. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first oxide layer has a first sub-thickness in a vertical direction, the second oxide layer has a second sub-thickness in the vertical direction, and a ratio of the second sub-thickness to the first sub-thickness ranges from 0.25 to 4. However, Wu discloses (Fig. 1E) a dielectric structure (850/872, etch stop dielectric/via-level dielectric, Para [0031] – [0032]) where 850 has a thickness of 5 nm to 30 nm and 872 has a thickness of 100 nm to 600 nm with a total thickness of 105 nm to 630 nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of layer thickness (result effective at least insofar as the layer thickness affects the characteristics such as refractive index and etch stopping of the layers) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 30 nm and 110 can be chosen to have a vertical thickness of 120 nm, resulting in a ratio of 4.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2016/0197049) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lai (US 2024/0413034).
Claim 4, Chen discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first refractive index ranges from 1.455 to 1.475. However, Lai discloses silicon oxide may have a refractive index ranging from 1.47 to 1.5 (Para [0047]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of refractive index (result effective at least insofar as the refractive index affects the compressive and tensile characteristics of the material) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed index or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to be a silicon oxide layer with an index of 1.47 for example.
Claim 5, Chen discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference between the second refractive index and the first refractive index ranges from 0.006 to 0.02. However, Lai discloses that silicon oxide may have a refractive index in a range from 1.47 to 1.5 and that silicon oxynitride may have a refractive index in a range from 1.5 to 1.6 (Para [0047]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of refractive index (result effective at least insofar as the refractive index affects the compressive and tensile characteristics of the material) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed index or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to be a silicon oxide layer with an index of 1.5 and Chen’s 110 can be chosen to be a silicon oxynitride layer with an index of 1.51, which results in an absolute value difference of 0.01. Claim 6, Chen discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index. However, Lai discloses that silicon oxide may have a refractive index in a range from 1.47 to 1.5 and that silicon oxynitride may have a refractive index in a range from 1.5 to 1.6 (Para [0047]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of refractive index (result effective at least insofar as the refractive index affects the compressive and tensile characteristics of the material) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed index or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to be a silicon oxide layer with an index of 1.47 and Chen’s 110 can be chosen to be a silicon oxynitride layer with an index of 1.50.
Claim 14, Chen discloses the method of claim 11. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first refractive index ranges from 1.455 to 1.475. However, Lai discloses silicon oxide may have a refractive index ranging from 1.47 to 1.5 (Para [0047]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of refractive index (result effective at least insofar as the refractive index affects the compressive and tensile characteristics of the material) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed index or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to be a silicon oxide layer with an index of 1.47 for example.
Claim 15, Chen discloses the method of claim 11. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference between the second refractive index and the first refractive index ranges from 0.006 to 0.02. However, Lai discloses that silicon oxide may have a refractive index in a range from 1.47 to 1.5 and that silicon oxynitride may have a refractive index in a range from 1.5 to 1.6 (Para [0047]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of refractive index (result effective at least insofar as the refractive index affects the compressive and tensile characteristics of the material) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed index or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to be a silicon oxide layer with an index of 1.5 and Chen’s 110 can be chosen to be a silicon oxynitride layer with an index of 1.51, which results in an absolute value difference of 0.01. Claim 16, Chen discloses the method of claim 11. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index. However, Lai discloses that silicon oxide may have a refractive index in a range from 1.47 to 1.5 and that silicon oxynitride may have a refractive index in a range from 1.5 to 1.6 (Para [0047]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine experimentation, “the result effective variable of refractive index (result effective at least insofar as the refractive index affects the compressive and tensile characteristics of the material) in order to optimize the functionality of the device (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP §2144.05).
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed index or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As a result, Chen’s 109 can be chosen to be a silicon oxide layer with an index of 1.47 and Chen’s 110 can be chosen to be a silicon oxynitride layer with an index of 1.50.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record, Chen (US 2016/0197049), Wu (US 2021/0217716), Lai (US 2024/0413034), fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination) the following limitations in combination with the rest of the claim:
Regarding Claim 8, the metal layer has a width in a horizontal direction, and the width is fixed along the vertical direction.
Regarding Claim 9 (from which claim 10 depends), wherein the first bonding structure comprises a first bonding dielectric layer and a first bonding conductor disposed through the first bonding dielectric layer, and the first bonding conductor directly contacts the metal layer.
Regarding Claim 18, the metal layer has a width in a horizontal direction, and the width is fixed along the vertical direction.
Regarding Claim 19 (from which claim 20 depends), wherein the first bonding structure comprises a first bonding dielectric layer and a first bonding conductor disposed through the first bonding dielectric layer, and the first bonding conductor directly contacts the metal layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO G RAMALLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/GUSTAVO G RAMALLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights