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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the reference to Lo (US 2022/0093548) fails to disclose all of the limitations of the currently amended claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. ¶0031 discloses 112 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0039 discloses 122 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0111 of Lo discloses an annealing operation is performed to foster interdiffusion between the corresponding bonding surfaces of the conductive pads (112, 122, figures 15H and 15I) at the bonding interface. The resulting bonding interface would result in a copper-silver alloy that meets the claimed limitations.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lo (US 2022/0093548).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lo (US 2022/0093548) discloses:
A hybrid bonding structure, comprising:
a first dielectric layer (126, ¶0029);
a plurality of first conductors (122, ¶0029), embedded in the first dielectric layer (126);
a second dielectric layer (116, ¶0029), bonded with the first dielectric layer (126); and
a plurality of second conductors (112, ¶0029), embedded in the second dielectric layer (116), wherein the second conductors (112) are bonded with the first conductors (122), and a bonding interface between the second conductors (112) and the first conductors (122) includes a copper-silver alloy formed during bonding of the second conductors and the first conductors.
¶0031 discloses 112 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0039 discloses 122 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0111 discloses an annealing operation performed to foster interdiffusion between the corresponding bonding surfaces of the conductive pads (112, 122, figures 15H and 15I) at the bonding interface. The resulting bonding interface would include a copper-silver alloy.
Regarding claim 4, Lo further discloses:
a first redistribution structure (220, ¶0093, figure 13), disposed on an outer surface of the first dielectric layer (126); and
a second redistribution structure (210, ¶0092, figure 13, ¶0100, figure 15A), disposed on an outer surface of the second dielectric layer (116), wherein the first redistribution structure (220) is electrically connected to the second redistribution structure (210) through the first conductors (122) and the second conductors (112, figure 13).
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) 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo.
Regarding claim 3, Lo further discloses:
wherein the first conductors (122) penetrate the first dielectric layer, the second conductors penetrate the second dielectric layer (126), a Young's modulus of the first dielectric layer is approximately between 2.5% and 3.2%, a tensile strength of the first dielectric layer is greater than 110 MPa (dielectric 126 is SiO, ¶0042), a Young's modulus of the second dielectric layer is approximately between 2.5% and 3.2%, and a tensile strength of the second dielectric layer is greater than 110 MPa (dielectric 116 is SiO, ¶0036).
Lo does not disclose “an elongation of the first dielectric layer is approximately between 10% and 85%” and “an elongation of the second dielectric layer is approximately between 10% and 85%”. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore, the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 8, Lo does not disclose “wherein the first dielectric layer has
a plurality of protrusions, the second dielectric layer has a plurality of grooves, and the protrusions”.
However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore, the claimed limitations are considered met.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 15 and 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huitema (2019/009686) in view of Lo.
PNG
media_image2.png
382
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Huitema discloses:
A display panel, comprising:
a bonding structure (104 and 108 taken together, ¶0082, ¶0085);
a first redistribution structure (120, ¶0085);
a second redistribution structure (110, ¶¶0082), wherein the first redistribution structure (120) and the second redistribution structure (110) are respectively located on opposite sides of the bonding structure, and the first redistribution structure (120) is electrically connected to the second redistribution structure (110) through the bonding structure;
a plurality of light emitting chips (102, ¶0081); and
a plurality of driving chips (200), wherein the driving chips (200) are electrically connected to the light emitting chips (102) through the second redistribution structure (120). Huitema does not disclose “a hybrid bonding structure”.
In a similar device, however, Lo discloses a hybrid bonding structure, comprising:
a first dielectric layer (126); a plurality of first conductors (122), embedded in the first dielectric layer (126); a second dielectric layer (116), bonded with the first dielectric layer (126); and a plurality of second conductors (112), embedded in the second dielectric layer (126), wherein the second conductors (112) are bonded with the first conductors (122), and a bonding interface between the second conductors and the first conductors includes a copper-silver alloy formed during bonding of the second conductors and the first conductors (¶0031 discloses conductor 112 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0039 discloses conductor 122 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0111 discloses an annealing operation is performed to foster interdiffusion between the corresponding conductive pads (112, 122, figures 15H and 15I) at the bonding interface. This annealing step results in a bonding interface comprising a copper-silver alloy); a first redistribution structure (220); a second redistribution structure (210), wherein the first redistribution structure (220) and the second redistribution structure (210) are respectively located on opposite sides of the hybrid bonding structure (figure 13), and the first redistribution structure (220) is electrically connected to the second redistribution structure (210) through the hybrid bonding structure.
Lo discloses that a structure as taught provides a hybrid bond with accompanying improved hybrid bonding strength (¶0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huitema, including providing a hybrid structure, in order to provide improved hybrid bond strength as taught by Lo.
Regarding claim 11, Huitema in view of Lo does not disclose “the first dielectric layer has a plurality of
protrusions, the second dielectric layer has a plurality of grooves, the protrusions are embedded in the grooves. However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore, the claimed limitations are considered met.
Regarding claim 15, the modification of Lo further discloses:
a flexible material layer (140, ¶0062), disposed on the first redistribution structure.
Regarding claim 17, the modification of Lo further discloses:
wherein a width of the first redistribution (114) structure is equal to a width of the second redistribution structure (114, figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Huitema discloses:
Huitema (2019/009686) discloses:
A display panel, comprising:
redistribution structure (110, ¶0082);
a plurality of light emitting chips (102, ¶0082), embedded in the redistribution structure;
a plurality of driving chips (200, ¶0082), equipped on the redistribution structure, wherein the driving chips (200) are electrically connected to the light emitting chips (102) through the redistribution structure (110); and
a carrying substrate (300, ¶0086), wherein the driving chips (200) are located between the redistribution structure (110) and the carrying substrate (300).
Huitema does not disclose “a hybrid bonding structure”.
In a similar device, however, Lo discloses a hybrid bonding structure, comprising:
a first dielectric layer (126); a plurality of first conductors (122), embedded in the first dielectric layer (126); a second dielectric layer (116), bonded with the first dielectric layer (126); and a plurality of second conductors (112), embedded in the second dielectric layer (126), wherein the second conductors (112) are bonded with the first conductors (122), and a bonding interface between the second conductors and the first conductors includes a copper-silver alloy formed during bonding of the second conductors and the first conductors (¶0031 discloses conductor 112 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0039 discloses conductor 122 is formed from an alloy of copper and silver. ¶0111 discloses an annealing operation is performed to foster interdiffusion between the corresponding conductive pads (112, 122, figures 15H and 15I) at the bonding interface. This annealing step results in a bonding interface comprising a copper-silver alloy).
Lo discloses that a structure as taught provides a hybrid bond with accompanying improved hybrid bonding strength (¶0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huitema, including providing a hybrid structure, in order to provide improved hybrid bond strength as taught by Lo.
Regarding claim 19, Huitema further discloses:
a stress compensation layer (120, ¶0085) disposed between the driving chips (200) and the carrying substrate (300).
Regarding claim 20, Huitema in view of Lo does not disclose “wherein the carrying substrate comprises a groove, and the driving chips are located in the groove”.
However, a change in size or shape or both is an unpatentable modification when it results in optimum conditions that differ from the prior art in degree but not in kind. In Re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47). In the instant case the prior art device would not perform differently if modified to the claimed shape or size. Therefore, the claimed limitations are considered met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and are 16 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not disclose “a first chip, embedded in the first redistribution structure and electrically connected to the first redistribution structure” in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not disclose “wherein the light emitting chips comprise a plurality of first light emitting chips and a plurality of second light emitting chips, the driving chips comprise a plurality of first driving chips and a plurality of second driving chips, the first light emitting chips and the first driving chips are embedded in the first redistribution structure, and the second light emitting chips and the second driving chips are embedded in the second redistribution structure” in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not disclose “wherein the light emitting chips are embedded in the first redistribution structure, and the driving chips are embedded in the second redistribution structure” in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not disclose “wherein the light emitting chips are embedded in the first redistribution structure, the driving chips are disposed on the second redistribution structure, and the light emitting chips are electrically connected to the driving chips through the first redistribution structure, the hybrid bonding structure, and the second redistribution structure” in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not disclose “wherein the light emitting chips and the driving chips are embedded in the first redistribution structure, and the light emitting chips are electrically connected to the driving chips at least through the first redistribution structure” in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not disclose “a first substrate, disposed on the first redistribution structure; and a second substrate, disposed on the second redistribution structure, wherein the first redistribution structure and the second redistribution structure are located between the first substrate and the second substrate” in combination with the remaining claimed features.
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 WILLIAM A HARRISTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/WILLIAM A HARRISTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights