Attorney Docket Number: CNT C1158-US
Filing Date: 10/20/2023
Inventor: Choi
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed 10/20/2023.
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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 recites the limitation “…the first destination site is at least part of the bad destination die”, which will be interpreted as “…the first destination site is made up at least in part with the bad destination die”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “…the second destination site is at least part of the known good destination die”, which will be interpreted as “…the second destination site is made up at least in part with the known good destination die”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent App. 18/491,556 in view of Hu et al (US 20200343218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent App. 18/491,556 discloses most aspects of the instant invention. However, claim 1 is silent about the first source die being a first dummy source die.
Hu, on the other hand and in the same field of endeavour, teaches forming dummy dies (see paragraphs 38 or 54).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dummy dies of Hu within the device of Choi, in order to improve the warpage profile and stability within the device (see, e.g., paragraphs 38 or 54).
Claim 7 is unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of Patent App No. 18/491,556 in view of Hu.
Claim 8 is unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of Patent App No. 18/491,556 in view of Hu.
Claim 18 is unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 9 of Patent App No. 18/491,556 in view of Hu.
Claim 19 is unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 9-10 of Patent App No. 18/491,556 in view of Hu.
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 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20200294870 A1) in view of Adel (US 20160047744 A1) further in view of Wu (US 20210082870 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu (see, e.g., fig. 5B), shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method comprising:
Bonding (see, e.g., paragraph 30 “…the integrated circuit devices 50A and 50B are attached by hybrid bonding”) a first dummy source die (e.g., topmost integrated circuit device 50A + dummy device 300A) to a first destination site of a destination substrate (e.g., first carrier substrate 508), wherein:
The first source die (e.g., topmost integrated circuit device 50A + dummy device 300A) has a first source metrology pattern (see, e.g., alignment mark 310 + paragraph 72);
The first destination site has a first destination metrology pattern (see, e.g., alignment marks 510);
Yu (see, e.g., fig. 5B), however, fails to show collecting first radiation data regarding at least portions of the first dummy source metrology pattern and the first destination metrology pattern within a first radiation area, wherein collecting the first radiation data is performed after bonding the first dummy source die to the first destination site; analyzing the first radiation data to determine a first overlay error between the first dummy source die and the first destination site; and adjusting a position of a known good source die or a second destination site of the destination substrate to compensate for the first overlay error between the first dummy source die and the first destination site.
Adel (see, e.g., fig. 3A), in a similar device to Yu, teaches collecting first radiation data (see, e.g., paragraphs 63 “…incident radiation beam is directed towards each of the targets…to measure four spectra…” + paragraph 64 “…utilizing measured spectra from a plurality of targets…”) regarding at least portions of a first radiation area (see, e.g., paragraphs 63 or 64), and analyzing the first radiation data (see, e.g., paragraphs 63-64) to determine a first overlay error (see, e.g., paragraph 57 “The number of targets and the magnitude and sense of their corresponding offsets may be chosen in any suitable manner so that the techniques of the present invention may be practiced to determine overlay error”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the radiation collection and analysis of Adel within the method configuration of Yu, in order to provide image and illumination data processing within the device. Note that since the radiation data comes from alignment marks are comprised within the die, the radiation collection would occur after bonding the dummy die.
Yu in view of Adel, however, fails to teach adjusting a position of a known good source die or a second destination site of a destination substrate to compensate for the first overlay error between the first dummy source die and the first destination site.
Wu (see, e.g., fig. 9), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel, teaches adjusting a position of a die to compensate for a first overlay error (see, e.g., paragraph 47 “For example, the overlay offset values (e.g., +A, −B) are converted to the overlay correction values (e.g., −A, +B), and then based on the overlay correction values (e.g., −A, +B), the pick-and-place tool and/or the wafer table (not shown) may adjust the positions of the semiconductor die to be placed accordingly.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the adjustment step of Wu within the method of Yu in view of Adel in order to reposition a die within the device in response to confirming the overlay errors, maintain the quality and performance of the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Nomaru (US 20210129265 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu fails to teach irradiating the first radiation area with infrared radiation.
Nomaru (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, teaches irradiating a radiation area with infrared radiation (see, e.g., paragraph 23 “…the alignment unit 90 may preferably include infrared ray irradiation means for irradiating an infrared ray, an optical system that captures the infrared ray irradiated by the infrared ray irradiation means and reflected on the front side of the wafer 10, and an imaging element (infrared CCD) that outputs an electrical signal corresponding to the infrared ray captured by the optical system”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the infrared light of Nomaru within the die-radiation-alignment configuration of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, in order to achieve the expected result of providing additional available wavelengths for data processing within the device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Prince (US 20230070459 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Adel teaches wherein collecting the first radiation data is performed using a radiation (see, e.g., paragraph 63).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the radiation of Adel within the method of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Yu, to achieve the expected result of providing a data interface within the device.
Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, however, fails to explicitly teach a radiation detector, wherein the radiation detector has a depth of focus of at most 9 μm.
Prince (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, teaches a radiation detector (e.g., optical detector, see paragraph 88), wherein the radiation detector (e.g., optical detector, see paragraph 88) has a depth of focus of at most 9 μm (see, e.g., paragraph 88 “…about 200 nm in this example and then acquiring a second image by focusing the optical detector (e.g., camera system 540) to a depth of about 1 μm in this example, and then removing illumination from out of focus reaction sites from those images using processing techniques such as described in more detail below”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the depth of focus length of Prince within the configuration of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, in order to limit the distance between the detector and the radiation source, enhancing the signal intensity within the device.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Beyne (US 20220189830 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu fails to teach wherein the destination substrate includes a known good destination die and a bad destination die, and the first destination site is at least part of the bad destination die.
Beyne (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, teaches a substrate (e.g., target wafer of paragraph 27) includes a known good die (see, e.g., paragraph 27) and a bad die (see, e.g., paragraph 27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the good die and bad die of Beyne within the destination of substrate of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, in order to provide both components free from defects within the substrate, and components that mark signs of defects in order to show potential flaws or defects within the substrate/device. Note that with the known good source die included in the destination substrate, the destination site is made up at least in part with the known good destination die.
Regarding claim 10, Beyne teaches bonding a known good source die (see, e.g., paragraph 49 “A target wafer is a final wafer on which the good dies are transferred and bonded”) to the substrate (e.g., target wafer, see paragraph 49) after adjusting the position of the known good source die (see, e.g., paragraph 49 “A target wafer is a final wafer on which the good dies are transferred and bonded”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the adjustment and bonding step of Beyne within the setup of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Beyne, as transferring and bonding were well-known steps at the time of filing the invention for implementing and connecting a die to a substrate, as taught by Beyne. Note that with the known good source die adjusted and bonded to the destination substrate, the destination site is made up at least in part with the known good destination die.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Chen (US 11862599 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu fails to teach wherein the first dummy source metrology pattern comprises a first dummy source alignment mark.
Chen (see, e.g., fig. 5), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, teaches bonding (see, e.g., paragraph 13) a dummy alignment mark (e.g., dummy alignment mark 50-DAM) to a metrology pattern (e.g., alignment mark 50-AM).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the dummy alignment mark of Chen within the device of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, in order to increase the bonding strength between the alignment marks and the device (see paragraph 13 of Chen).
Regarding claim 13, Yu (see, e.g., fig. fig. 5B) shows wherein the first destination metrology pattern (e.g., alignment marks 510) comprises a first destination alignment mark.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, Chen, and Schulze-Ollmert (US 20250112097 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Chen fails to teach wherein the first destination metrology pattern comprises a set of contact pads that is not a part of an alignment mark.
Schulze-Ollmert (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Chen, teaches wherein the first destination metrology pattern comprises a set of contact pads (e.g., contact pads 61-64) that are not part of an alignment mark (e.g., alignment pads 71-72).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the contact pads of Schulze-Ollmert within the metrology pattern, adjacent to the alignment marks of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Chen, in order to provide conductive testing structures within the device (see, e.g., paragraphs 3-6 or paragraph 32 of Schulze-Ollmert).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Schulze-Ollmert.
Regarding claim 15, Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu fails to teach wherein the first dummy source metrology pattern comprise areas including arrays of corresponding contact pads.
Schulze-Ollmert (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Chen, teaches a metrology pattern (e.g., alignment pads 71-72) comprise areas (see, e.g., area between alignment pads 71-72) including arrays of corresponding contact pads (e.g., contact pads 61-64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the contact pads of Schulze-Ollmert within the metrology pattern areas of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, in order to provide conductive testing structures within the device (see, e.g., paragraphs 3-6 or paragraph 32 of Schulze-Ollmert).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Rehman (US 20220082944 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu fails to teach wherein analyzing comprises analyzing the first radiation data using spatial frequency analysis.
Rehman (see, e.g., paragraph 62), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, teaches analyzing radiation data using spatial frequency analysis (see, e.g., paragraph 62 “In an embodiment, the lens arrangement allows for access of an intermediate pupil-plane for spatial-frequency filtering. Therefore, the angular range at which the radiation is incident on the substrate can be selected by defining a spatial intensity distribution in a plane that presents the spatial spectrum of the substrate plane…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the spatial frequency analysis of Rehman within the configuration of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, as spatial frequency analysis was a well-known methodology of analyzing radiation data at the time of filing the invention, as taught by Rehman.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu and Keizo (WO 2008053524 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu fails to teach wherein analyzing the first radiation data comprises analyzing a pattern of a first image generated from the first radiation data as compared to a pattern of a standard image.
Keizo (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, teaches wherein analyzing radiation data comprises analyzing a pattern of a first image generated from the first radiation data (see, e.g., paragraph 12 “Based on the substrate current obtained by irradiating the electron beam…” + paragraph 48 “…a standard image called a template, and secondary electrons, reflected electrons, etc. are compared with images obtained by measurement, such as substrate current…”) as compared to a pattern of a standard image (see, e.g., paragraph 48 “…a standard image called a template, and secondary electrons, reflected electrons, etc. are compared with images obtained by measurement, such as substrate current…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the image comparison of Keizo within the method of Yu in view of Adel further in view of Wu, in order to provide a reference image for data comparison within the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 11, and 16-17 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.
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