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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102()(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., US 2022/0384345 (corresponding to US 11,881,455).
In re Claim 1, Park discloses an apparatus comprising: a first substrate (a portion of 1200a (Fig. 3M) marked as 1S in Fig. A) comprising a first device (transistor 160, ([0043]) configured to receive a voltage, a first (upper) side disposed on a front of the first substrate 1S, and a second (bottom) side disposed on a back of the first substrate S1; a second substrate 1300, the second substrate 1300 configured to support the first substrate S1; and a power distribution network (PDN) disposed at an interface between the second side of the first substrate S1 and the second substrate 1300 (Figs. 1-10 and A; [0039-0091]).
In re Claim 3, Park discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first device (transistor 160, ([0043]) configured to receive the voltage comprises a transistor.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A. Park’s Fig. 3M annotated to show the details cited
In reclaim 4, Park discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power distribution network (PDN) directly couples to the second (bottom) side of the first substrate 1S and the second substrate 1200 (Fig. A).
In reclaim 5, Park discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first substrate further comprises: a first connector (a portion of 120, marked as 1C in Fig. A) coupled to a power source and to the power distribution network (PDN); and a second connector 2C coupled to the power distribution network (PDN) and the first device 160 of the first substrate 1S. (Fig. A).
In re Claim 7, Park discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein at least one of the first connector 1C or the second connector 2C comprises a via or a trench 121 (Figs. 3C and A).
In re Claim 9, Park discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a third substrate (a portion of 1200a marked as 3C in Fig. A) between the power distribution network (PDN) and the first substrate 1S; and the third substrate 3C couples the power distribution network (PDN) to the first substrate 1S.
In re Claim 10, Park discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the third substrate further comprises : a first connector 1C coupled to a power source and to the power distribution network (PDN); and a second connector 2C coupled to the power distribution network (PDN) and the first device 160 of the first substrate 1S (Fig. A).
In re Claim 13, Park discloses a method of manufacturing a backside power distribution network of a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming at least one of a first substrate a portion of 1200a (Fig. 3M) marked as 1S in Fig. A) comprising a device 160 (transistor 160, ([0043]) configured to receive a voltage or a second substrate, wherein the second substrate 1300 is configured to support the first substrate 1S; and forming a power distribution network (PDN) configured to be disposed at an interface between the first substrate 1S and the second substrate 1300 (Figs. 1-10 and A; [0039-0091]).
In re Claim 13, Park discloses a method of manufacturing a backside power distribution network of a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming at least one of a first substrate (a portion of 1200a (Fig. 3M) marked as 1S in Fig. A) comprising a device 160 (transistor 160, ([0043]) configured to receive a voltage or a second substrate 1300, wherein the second substrate 1300 is configured to support the first substrate 1S; and forming a power distribution network (PDN) configured to be disposed at an interface between the first substrate 1S and the second substrate 1300 (Figs. 1-15 and A; [0039-0112]).
In re Claim 14, Park discloses the method of claim 13, wherein forming the power distribution network (PDN) disposed at the interface between the first substrate 1S and the second substrate 1300 comprises forming the power distribution network (PDN) on a back side of the first substrate 1S. (Figs. 1-15 and A; [0039-0112]).
In re Claim 15, Park discloses the method of claim 14, wherein, once the power distribution network (PDN) is formed on the first substrate 1S, the method further comprises bonding the first substrate 1S to the second substrate 1300 (Fig. 3I, [0054]).
In re Claim 18, Park discloses the method of claim 13, wherein forming the power distribution network (PDN) disposed at an interface between the first substrate 1S and the second substrate 1300 comprises forming a third substrate 3S and forming the power distribution network (PDN) on the third substrate 3S, wherein the third substrate 3S further comprises a connector 1C configured to couple the device 160 of the first substrate 1S with the power distribution network (PDN) (Fig. A).
In re Claim 19, Park discloses the method of claim 18, wherein, once the power distribution network (PDN) is formed on the third substrate 3S, the method further comprises bonding the first substrate 1S to the third substrate 3S and the second substrate 1300 to the third substrate 3S, wherein the power distribution network (PDN) is between the second substrate 1300 and the third substrate 3S. (Fig.A).
In re Claim 20, Park discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a first substrate (a portion of 1200a (Fig. 3M) marked as 1S in Fig. A) comprising a device 160 (transistor 160, ([0043]) configured to receive a voltage; a metal layer 180 ([0053]) coupled to a first (upper) side of the first substrate 1S; a second substrate 1300 coupled to a second (bottom) side of the first substrate 1S opposite the metal layer 180 and the first (upper) side, the second substrate 1300 configured to support the first substrate 1S; and a power distribution network (PDN) disposed between the second (bottom) side of the first substrate 1S and the second substrate 1300 (Figs. 1-15 and A; [0039-0112]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above.
In re Claim 2, Park discloses all limitations of Claim 2 except for that the first substrate 1S comprises monocrystalline silicon and the second substrate 1300 comprises monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, silicon carbide, glass, sapphire, or gallium arsenide. the difference between the Applicant’s Claim 2 and Park’s reference is in the specified materials of the first and second substrate. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the first substrate 1S comprising monocrystalline silicon and the second substrate 1300 comprising monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, silicon carbide, glass, sapphire, or gallium arsenide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 6, Park discloses all limitations of Claim 6 except for that a ratio of a first diameter of the first connector 1C to a second diameter of the second connector 2C is between about 3:1 and 20:1. It is known in the art that diameter is a result effective variable – because volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the ratio of a first diameter of the first connector 1C to a second diameter of the second connector 2C is between about 3:1 and 20:1, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 8, Park discloses all limitations of Claim 8 except for that a ratio of a first thickness of the first substrate 1S to a second thickness of the second substrate 1300 is between about 1:200 and 1:10. It is known in the art that thickness of the substrate is a result effective variable – because its volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the ratio of a first thickness of the first substrate 1S to a second thickness of the second substrate 1300 is between about 1:200 and 1:10, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 11, Park discloses all limitations of Claim 11 except for that the second substrate 1300 further comprises a second device configured to provide non-volatile memory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the second substrate further comprising a second device configured to provide non-volatile memory since it was known in the art that it is well-known and routine practice in semiconductor technology. (MPEP2144.I.)
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 13 above.
In re Claim 16, Park discloses the method of claim 13, wherein forming the power distribution network (PDN) disposed at an interface between the first substrate 1S and the second substrate 1300 comprises forming the power distribution network (PDN) on the second substrate 1300 (Fig. A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form (PDN) first on the second substrate 1300, since it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (See MPEP2144.04.IV.C.)
In re Claim 17, Park discloses the method of claim 13, wherein, once the power distribution network (PDN) is formed on the second substrate 1300, the method further comprises bonding the first substrate 1S to the second substrate 1300. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form (PDN) first on the second substrate 1300, since it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (See MPEP2144.04.IV.C.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
In re Claim 12: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 12 as: “the first substrate further comprises a circuit towards the second side of the first substrate, wherein the circuit is configured to control a current”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893