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
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, 5, 6, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 2019/0252306 and further in view of Lai et al US 2013/0320522.
Pertaining to claim 1, Park teaches a device comprising:
a redistribution layer (RDL) 22a comprising a metal material formed over a substrate;
a passivation layer 26a formed over the RDL; and
an oxidation layer 24a [0044] Aluminum Oxide formed on sidewalls of the RDL 22a between the RDL 22a and the passivation layer 26a see Figures 3 and 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park fails to teach an oxidation layer of the metal material. Lai teaches that copper (the metal taught by Park) and aluminum are interchangeable materials for use as a metal in a redistribution layer (ie an electrical contact or via or line) [0013] of Lai. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select aluminum instead of copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Note also that the Aluminum Oxide layer of Park promotes adhesion with the passivation layer [0044] of Park.
Pertaining to claim 2, Park in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the metal material comprises Aluminum (Al) and the oxidation layer comprises Aluminum oxide. See rejection of claim 1 above
Pertaining to claim 5, Park in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the oxidation layer of the metal material was formed in a plasma chamber using one or more of an oxygen (O2) plasma, Nitrous oxide (N2O) plasma, or nitrogen oxide (NO) plasma. This is a product by process limitation and is not given patentable weight. Park in view of Lai teaches the claimed structure, see rejection of Claims 1 and 2 above.
Product-By-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.).
Pertaining to claim 6, Park in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the oxidation layer of the metal material was formed from an aluminum oxide film that was deposited by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process with an Al precursor and oxidant. This is a product by process limitation and is not given patentable weight. Park in view of Lai teaches the claimed structure, see rejection of Claims 1 and 2 above.
Product-By-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.).
Pertaining to claim 9, Park teaches a method comprising:
forming a redistribution layer (RDL) 22a comprising a metal material over a substrate;
forming an oxidation layer 24a [0044] Aluminum Oxide on sidewalls of the RDL 22a; and
depositing a passivation layer 26a over the RDL 22a and the oxidation layer 24a, wherein the oxidation layer is formed between the RDL and the passivation layer see Figures 3 and 4.
Park fails to teach an oxidation layer of the metal material. Lai teaches that copper (the metal taught by Park) and aluminum are interchangeable materials for use as a metal in a redistribution layer (ie an electrical contact or via or line) [0013] of Lai. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select aluminum instead of copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Note also that the Aluminum Oxide layer of Park promotes adhesion with the passivation layer [0044] of Park.
Pertaining to claim 14, Park in view of Lai teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the metal material comprises Aluminum (Al) and the oxidation layer comprises Aluminum oxide. See rejection of claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 2019/0252306 and further in view of Lai et al US 2013/0320522 and further in view of Kim et al US 2007/0117257
Pertaining to claim 3, Park in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 2, including wherein the passivation layer is an inorganic filler (Park), but are silent wherein the passivation layer comprises Silicon oxide (SiO2). Kim teaches that Silicon Oxide is an inorganic material used as a passivation material in a similar manner as taught by Park [0074] element 180. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select silicon oxide as taught by Kim for the passivation layer of Park, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Pertaining to claim 4, Park/Lai in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the RDL is without voids formed in top or bottom corners of the RDL. Park does not mention voids, therefore the RDL is considered to not have voids and none are illustrated by Park in the RDL layer.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 2019/0252306 and further in view of Lai et al US 2013/0320522 and further in view of Kitagawa et al US 2017/0323907.
Pertaining to claim 7, Park in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 1, but Park teaches aluminum oxide. Kitagawa teaches a similar RDL structure, wherein the metal material comprises Copper (Cu) 7a and the oxidation layer comprises Cu oxide 8 see Figure 1 and Abstract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select copper and copper oxide as taught by Kitagawa for the metal and metal oxide layer of Park, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Pertaining to claim 8, Park in view of Lai in view of Kitagawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the oxidation layer has a thickness between approximately 20 angstroms to approximately 100 angstroms. Kitagawa [0012]
Pertaining to claim 10, Park in view of Lai teaches the method of claim 9, but are silent wherein forming the oxidation layer comprises performing a plasma oxidation process to form the oxidation layer on sidewalls of the RDL. Kitagawa teaches that an oxidation layer on a metal RDL layer can be formed by a plasma treatment [0095]. . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select a plasma treatment as taught by Kitagawa for the means to produce the oxide layer of Park, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Pertaining to claim 11, Park/Lai in view of Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 10, wherein performing the plasma oxidation process comprises forming the oxidation layer using plasma comprising one or more of an oxygen (O2) plasma, a Nitrous oxide (N2O) plasma, and a nitrogen oxide (NO) plasma. Kitagawa teaches that the plasma treatment uses Nitrous Oxide [0095]
Pertaining to claim 13, Park/Lai teaches the method of claim 9, but is silent wherein forming the oxidation layer comprises forming the oxidation layer with a thickness between approximately 20 angstroms to approximately 100 angstroms. Kitagawa teaches an oxidation layer encompassed by this thickness range. see Kitagawa [0012]. It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Park and Kitagawa to enable the oxide formation step of Park to be performed according to the teachings of Kitagawa because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable methods of performing the disclosed oxide formation step of Park and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 2019/0252306 and further in view of Lai et al US 2013/0320522 and further in view of Haberern et al US 2004/0147054.
Pertaining to claim 12, Park in view of Lai teaches the method of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein forming the oxidation layer comprises depositing an aluminum oxide film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process with an Al precursor and oxidant. Park teaches sputtering. Haberern teaches that an aluminum oxide layer can be formed by sputtering OR a CVD process [0041]. It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Park and Haberern to enable the oxide formation step of Park to be performed according to the teachings of Haberern because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable methods of performing the disclosed oxide formation step of Park and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 2019/0252306 and further in view of Lai et al US 2013/0320522 and further in view of Barth et al US 2006/0019483 and further in view of Mackawa US 2004/0227197.
Pertaining to claim 16, Park teaches a method comprising:
forming a redistribution layer (RDL) over a substrate;
oxidizing sidewalls of the RDL to form an Aluminum oxidation layer on the sidewalls of the RDL;
depositing a passivation layer over the RDL and the Aluminum oxidation layer, wherein the Aluminum oxidation layer is formed between the RDL and the passivation layer; See rejection of claims 9 and 14 above.
Park in view of Lai fails to teach wherein the redistribution layer (RDL) comprises Aluminum copper (AlCu). Barth teaches that AlCu is an acceptable alternative to aluminum for use in an RDL layer 170 [0065]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select copper and copper oxide as taught by Kitagawa for the metal and metal oxide layer of Park, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Park in view of Lai fails to teach:
performing a hydrogen plasma annealing treatment without hydrogen-induced voiding in top or bottom corners of the RDL.
Mackawa teaches that post plasma processes, a hydrogen plasma anneal treatment is conducted to recover plasma damage of the exposed layers [0109]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Mackawa into the method of Park/Lai by introducing a hydrogen anneal. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park/Lai in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of repairing damage from plasma treatments.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US 2019/0252306 and further in view of Lai et al US 2013/0320522 and further in view of Barth et al US 2006/0019483 and further in view of Mackawa US 2004/0227197 and further in view of Kitagawa et al US 2017/0323907.
Pertaining to claim 17, Park in view of Lai/Barth/Mackawa teaches the method of claim 16, but are silent wherein forming the oxidation layer comprises performing a plasma oxidation process to form the oxidation layer on sidewalls of the RDL. Kitagawa teaches that an oxidation layer on a metal RDL layer can be formed by a plasma treatment [0095]. . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select a plasma treatment as taught by Kitagawa for the means to produce the oxide layer of Park, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Pertaining to claim 18, Park in view of Lai/Barth/Mackawa in view of Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 17, wherein performing the plasma oxidation process comprises forming the oxidation layer using plasma comprising one or more of an oxygen (O2) plasma, a Nitrous oxide (N2O) plasma, and a nitrogen oxide (NO) plasma. Kitagawa teaches that the plasma treatment uses Nitrous Oxide [0095]
Pertaining to claim 20, Park in view of Lai/Barth/Mackawa in view of Kitagawa teaches the method of claim 16, wherein oxidizing sidewalls of the RDL to form the Aluminum oxidation layer comprises forming the Aluminum oxidation layer to a thickness between approximately 20 angstroms to approximately 100 angstroms. Kitagawa [0012] It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Park and Kitagawa to enable the oxide formation step of Park to be performed according to the teachings of Kitagawa because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable methods of performing the disclosed oxide formation step of Park and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 19 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.
Pertaining to claims 15 and 19, the prior art fails to teach or suggest in combination with precedent claims to which they depend, depositing the passivation layer comprises depositing the passivation layer in a plasma chamber after performing the plasma oxidation process in the plasma chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights