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 .
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(s) 1-7, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (2021/0242161) in view of the following comments.
Re claim 1, Shih discloses (Fig. 1B) a substrate (360/340/320) having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side; a BEOL layer (210/250) disposed on the first side of the substrate ([0037]); a plurality of first metal structures (410) penetrating the substrate (360/340/320); and a plurality of second metal structures (420) disposed in the substrate (360/340/320), partially extending from the second side towards the first side of the substrate, corresponding to the first metal structures.
Shih does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the first metal structures, one of the second metal structures, and a partial area of the substrate between the first metal structure and the second metal structure form a metal- insulator-metal capacitor.
However, in Shih Fig. 1B, it is clearly noticeable that one of the second metal structures (420), and a partial area of the substrate (320) between the first metal structure (410) and the second metal structure (420) form a metal- insulator-metal capacitor (Fig. 1B~ a parasitic capacitor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to notice the capacitor being formed by the layered structure and functional for its own intended purpose.
Re claim 2, Shih discloses wherein the first metal structures and the second metal structures comprise copper ([0057]~ conductive material 400).
Re claim 3, Shih discloses wherein the first metal structures and the second metal structures comprise columnar structures (Fig. 13).
Re claim 4, Shih discloses wherein one of the first metal structures corresponds to one of the second metal structures (Fig. 13).
Re claims 5-7, Song et al. does not clearly disclose wherein the first metal structures form an array, and the second metal structures are disposed on both sides of the array; Song et al. disclose wherein the first metal structures comprise columnar structures Song et al. does not disclose the second metal structures comprise rectangular structures.
Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 9, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to add second bumps, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re claim 16, Shih discloses providing a carrier (220) with a substrate (360/340/320) disposed thereon (Fig. 10A), the substrate having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, wherein a BEOL layer (210/250) is disposed on the first side of the substrate (220), and a plurality of first metal structures penetrate the substrate; disposing a plurality of vias (324/326) in the substrate, wherein the vias extend from the second side towards the first side of the substrate, and correspond to the first metal structures; and filling metal (400) into the vias to form a plurality of second metal structures (Fig. 12).
Shih does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the first metal structures, one of the second metal structures, and a partial area of the substrate between the first metal structure and the second metal structure form a metal- insulator-metal capacitor.
However, in Shih Fig. 1B, it is clearly noticeable that one of the second metal structures (420), and a partial area of the substrate (320) between the first metal structure (410) and the second metal structure (420) form a metal- insulator-metal capacitor (Fig. 1B~ a parasitic capacitor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to notice the capacitor being formed by the layered structure and functional for its own intended purpose.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih in view of comments as applied to claims 1-7, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Song et al. (2022/0139863).
Re claim 8, Shih does not disclose further comprising a plurality of first bumps disposed on the BEOL layer.
Song et al. disclose further comprising a plurality of first bumps (700) disposed on the BEOL layer (600) ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shih and Song et al. to provide the bumps at taught in Song et al. further components in the resultant structure.
Re claim 10, Song et al. disclose further comprising a redistribution layer (400) disposed on the second side of the substrate to cover the first metal structures and the second metal structures (520), exposing the second bumps (in the combination) (Fig. 1).
Re claim 12, Shih discloses a first semiconductor unit (Fig. 1B), comprising: a first substrate (360/340/320) having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side; a first BEOL layer (210/250) disposed on the first side of the first substrate; a plurality of first metal structures (410) penetrating the first substrate; and a plurality of second metal structures (420) disposed in the first substrate, partially extending from the second side towards the first side of the first substrate (Fig. 1B), corresponding to the first metal structures.
Shih does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the first metal structures, one of the second metal structures, and a partial area of the substrate between the first metal structure and the second metal structure form a metal- insulator-metal capacitor.
However, in Shih Fig. 1B, it is clearly noticeable that one of the second metal structures (420), and a partial area of the substrate (320) between the first metal structure (410) and the second metal structure (420) form a metal- insulator-metal capacitor (Fig. 1B~ a parasitic capacitor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to notice the capacitor being formed by the layered structure and functional for its own intended purpose.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a second semiconductor unit with a second substrate, second BEOL layer and third and fourth metal structures as claimed in claim 12, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re claim 13, Song et al. disclose wherein the first metal structures (520) of the first semiconductor unit are electrically connected to the third metal structures (140) of the second semiconductor unit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights