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 .
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 6, line 2, "which t may provide" should likely instead read "which may provide"
Paragraph 39, line 6, “deposited and removed materials..” should only include a single period and read “deposited and removed materials.”
Paragraph 46, line 1, “illustrating a method 200of manufacturing” need to include a space between “200” and “of” and should read “illustrating a method 200 of manufacturing”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “which oppose stress induced in into the structure” should likely read “which oppose stress induced in the structure”
In claim 5, “wherein the at least one support is extended” should likely read “wherein at least one support is extended”
In claim 6, “wherein the at least one support is extended” should likely read “wherein at least one support is extended”
In claim 7, “wherein the at least one support is extended” should likely read “wherein at least one support is extended”
In claim 8, “wherein the at least one support is extended” should likely read “wherein at least one support is extended”
In claim 11, “the step of forming at least support extended” should likely read “the step of forming at least one support extended”
In claim 11, “vertical to the at least one stress layer” should likely read “vertical to at least one stress layer.”
In claim 12, “to form the at least one stress layer” should likely read “to form at least one stress layer.”
In claim 13, “comprising forming at least support extended” should likely read “comprising forming at least one support extended”
In claim 13, “horizontal to the at least one stress layer” should likely read “horizontal to at least one stress layer”
In claim 14, “to form the at least one stress layer” should likely read “to form at least one stress layer”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 11, “a direction substantially vertical to the at least one stress layer” is being interpreted to mean a direction substantially perpendicular to at least one stress layer for the purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 13, “a direction substantially horizontal to the at least one stress layer” is being interpreted to mean a direction substantially parallel to at least one stress layer for the purposes of examination.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “an effective amount” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an effective amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the This extends to all claims dependent upon claim 1.
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (US Patent No. 10,763,099), hereinafter referred to as Dai, in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US20220102289A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising providing a structure having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Figs. 8A-8C, Wafer 802); and forming a compensation layer over the second surface of the structure (Fig. 8B, Film 806; Col. 13, lines 51-65), which includes a support trench (Fig. 8C, Compensation structure 808; Col. 13, line 66 – Col. 14, line 34). However, Dai does not teach filling a support trench with an effective amount of compensation material, mechanical characteristics of which oppose stress induced in the structure from the second surface of the structure.
Kim teaches including a support trench into which is provided an effective amount of compensation material, mechanical characteristics of which oppose stress induced in the structure from the second surface of the structure (Fig. 7A, Trenches 720; Fig. 7B, Filled trenches; ¶51 & ¶65-67).
Dai and Kim are analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to incorporate the teachings of Kim to fill the trenches in the compensation structure of Dai with the compensation material of Kim for the larger reductions in wafer bowing achieved by filled trenches compared to empty trenches, as recognized by Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Dai does not teach the compensation material being a material which provides a force to the structure, that opposes force applied to the structure by the first surface.
Kim teaches the compensation material being a material which provides a force to the structure, that opposes force applied to the structure by the first surface (¶24-25, ¶28, & ¶66).
Dai and Kim are analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to incorporate the teachings of Kim to fill the trenches in the compensation structure of Dai with a compensation material which provides a force to the structure, that opposes force applied to the structure by the first surface. For the purpose of achieving larger reductions in wafer bowing by using filled trenches compared to empty trenches, as recognized by Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Dai further teaches forming at least one support trench in the compensation layer (Fig. 8C, Compensation structure 808), after forming the compensation layer (Fig. 8B, Film 806; Col. 13, line 24 – Col. 14, line 53). However, Dai does not teach filling the support trench with a compensation material to create at least one support in the compensation layer.
Kim teaches filling the support trench with a compensation material to create at least one support in the compensation layer (Fig. 7A, Trenches 720; Fig. 7B, Filled Trenches 740; ¶65-66).
Dai and Kim are analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to incorporate the teachings of Kim to fill the trenches in the compensation structure of Dai with the compensation material of Kim for the larger reductions in wafer bowing achieved by filled trenches compared to empty trenches, as recognized by Kim.
Regarding claim 5, Dai further teaches at least one support being extended in a first direction of the structure (Fig. 7A, Compensation structure 704; Col. 12, lines 25-59).
Regarding claim 6, Dai further teaches at least one support being extended in a second direction of the structure (Fig. 7A, Compensation structure 704; Col. 12, lines 25-59).
Regarding claim 9, Dai further teaches forming an integrated circuit over the first surface of the structure (Figs. 8A-8C, Wafer 802, Semiconductor structures 804; Col. 13, lines 38-50).
Regarding claim 10, Dai further teaches the integrated circuit comprising a stress generating layer (Figs. 8A-8C, Wafer 802, Semiconductor structures 804; Col. 13, lines 38-50).
Regarding claim 11, Dai does not teach the step of forming at least one support extended in the compensation layer along a direction substantially vertical to at least one stress layer.
Kim teaches the step of forming at least one support extended in the compensation layer along a direction substantially vertical to at least one stress layer (Fig. 8, Filled trench 840; ¶68).
Dai and Kim are analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to incorporate the teachings of Kim to have a support trench filled with a compensation material that is extended in a direction substantially vertical to at least one stress layer. For the purpose of increasing the reduction in wafer bowing by having trenches with a greater depth, as recognized by Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Dai further teaches forming at least one support extended in the compensation layer along a direction substantially horizontal to the at least one stress layer (Fig. 7A, Compensation structure 704; Col. 12, lines 25-59).
Regarding claim 15, Dai teaches forming a compensation layer and that other operations can be performed before or after forming the compensation layer (Fig. 9, Method 900, Operation 904; Col. 13 lines 31- 37). However, Dai does not teach forming a buffer layer over the integrated circuit before forming the compensation layer.
Kim teaches forming a buffer layer over the integrated circuit before forming the compensation layer (Fig. 9, Method 900; Figs. 6A-6F, Hard mask layer 602, Hard mask layer 604; Figs. 7A-7B, Hard mask layer 602; Fig. 8, Hard mask layer 602; ¶70).
Dai and Kim are analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to incorporate the teachings of Kim to form a buffer layer over the integrated circuit before forming the compensation layer. For the purpose of protecting the integrated circuit during the formation of the compensation layer and during subsequent steps in the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 16, Dai further teaches forming at least one support trench extended in the compensation layer (Fig. 7A, Compensation structure 704, Fig. 8C, Compensation structure 808; Col. 12, lines 25-59). However, Dai does not teach filling the support trench with compensation material to form a support and Dai also does not teach removing the buffer layer.
Kim teaches filling the support trench with a compensation material to form at least one support extended in the compensation layer (Fig. 7A, Trenches 720; Fig. 7B, Filled Trenches 740; ¶65-66). Kim also teaches removing the buffer layer (Figs. 6C-6E, Hard mask layer 604; ¶62).
Dai and Kim are analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to incorporate the teachings of Kim to fill the trenches in the compensation structure of Dai with the compensation material of Kim for the larger reductions in wafer bowing achieved by filled trenches compared to empty trenches, as recognized by Kim. Also, to remove the buffer layer for the purpose of performing subsequent manufacturing steps such as etching or deposition processes.
Regarding claim 17, Dai further teaches removing the compensation layer and the support (Fig. 3, Operation 308; Col. 14, lines 35-53).
Regarding claim 18, Dai further teaches the compensation layer comprising at least one supporting trench crossing the compensation layer and a size of the stress is controlled by controlling the direction and number of supporting trenches (Fig. 7A; Col. 12 lines 25-59; Col.13, line 24 – Col. 14, lines 35 -53).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wellhausen et al. (US Patent No. 6,815,234), hereinafter referred to as Wellhausen.
Regarding claim 3, Dai does not teach the compensation material being a material which provides a stress to the structure, which has a magnitude that is substantially the same as the magnitude of stress induced in the structure from the first surface.
Kim teaches the compensation material being a material which provides a stress to the structure, that opposes force applied to the structure by the first surface (¶24-25, ¶28, & ¶66).
Wellhausen teaches a stress compensating layer which provides a stress to the structure which has a magnitude that is substantially the same as the magnitude of stress induced in the structure from the first surface (Fig. 3, Stress compensating layer 370; Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 16).
Dai, Kim, and Wellhausen are all analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to incorporate the teachings of Kim to fill the trenches in the compensation structure of Dai with a compensation material which provides a stress to the structure that opposes force applied to the structure by the first surface of Kim. For the purpose of achieving larger reductions in wafer bowing by using filled trenches compared to empty trenches, as recognized by Kim. Also, to incorporate the teachings of Wellhausen to have the compensation material provide a stress to the structure which has a magnitude that is substantially the same as the magnitude of stress induced in the structure from the first surface. For the purpose of reducing the effective stress on the device to avoid adverse effects on performance and reliability from excessive stress, as recognized by Wellhausen.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Kim as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Batinica et al (US Patent No. 9,978,582), hereinafter referred to as Batinica..
Regarding claim 7, Dai in view of Kim does not teach at least one support extended in a direction intersected with a first direction or a second direction of the structure.
Batinica teaches at least one support extended in a direction intersected with a first direction or a second direction of the structure (Fig. 3B, thin film layer 15; Col. 6, lines 43-53).
Dai, Kim, and Batinica are all analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Batinica to have at least one support extended in a direction intersected with a first direction or a second direction of the structure. For the purpose of reducing the bowing in wafers with unequal stress about two axes, as recognized by Batinica.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Kim as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chang et al (Pub. No. US20150380363A1), hereinafter referred to as Chang.
Regarding claim 8, Dai in view of Kim does not teach at least one support being extended in a first direction and a second direction substantially perpendicular to each other to divide the second surface of the structure into four regions.
Chang teaches at least one support being extended in a first direction and a second direction substantially perpendicular to each other to divide the second surface of the structure into four regions (Fig. 4A, Support beams 430 & 432; ¶29).
Dai, Kim, and Chang are all analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Chang to have at least one support extended in a first direction and a second direction substantially perpendicular to each other to divide the second surface of the structure into four regions. For the purpose of reducing wafer warpage due to the creation of trenches on the wafer, as recognized by Chang.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Kim as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (Pub. No. US20230062866A1), hereinafter referred to as Yin.
Regarding claim 12, Dai does not teach the compensation material being a material which provides a stress having a direction opposite to the direction of the stress induced in the structure by at least one material deposited over or removed from the integrated circuit to form the at least one stress layer.
Kim teaches the compensation material being a material which provides a stress having a direction opposite to the direction of the stress induced in the structure (¶24-25, ¶28, & ¶66).
Yin teaches stress being induced in the structure by at least one material deposited over or removed from the integrated circuit to form at least one stress layer (¶26-27).
Dai, Kim, and Yin are all analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Yin to have the compensation material be a material which provides a stress having a direction opposite to the direction of the stress induced in the structure by at least one material deposited over or removed from the integrated circuit. For the purpose of reducing wafer bowing during manufacturing processes, as recognized by Yin.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wellhausen and Yin.
Regarding claim 14, Dai in view of Kim does not teach the compensation material providing a stress substantially the same as or similar to the stress within a set range the stress of a material deposited over or removed from the integrated circuit to form at least one stress layer.
Wellhausen teaches a stress compensating layer which provides a stress to the structure which is substantially the same as the stress induced in the structure (Fig. 3, Stress compensating layer 370; Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 16).
Yin teaches stress being induced in the structure by at least one material deposited over or removed from the integrated circuit to form at least one stress layer (¶26-27).
Dai, Kim, Wellhausen, and Yin are all analogous art are as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warping of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai in view of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Yin and Wellhausen to have the compensation material provide a stress substantially the same or similar to the stress within a set range the stress of a material deposited over or removed from the integrated circuit. For the purpose of reducing wafer bowing during manufacturing processes and reducing the effective stress on the device to avoid adverse effects on performance and reliability from excessive stress, as recognized by Yin and Wellhausen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sheng et al. (US Patent No. 11,094,647) and Wu et al. (Pub. No. US20120007220A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN ALEXANDER TUTTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-7055. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/E.A.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897