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 § 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation as recited in claim 7 where a width of the first aperture is greater than a width of the second aperture appears to contradict the disclosure where it is shown in figs. 1E and 2E the second width W2 is greater than W1.
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) 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattis et al., US 20200209476.
Regarding claim 1, Mattis disclose (figs. 3-9 and related text) a method for manufacturing a semiconductor die, comprising: forming a front side of a semiconductor wafer (310); etching a surface of the semiconductor wafer (310, fig. 4) to a predetermined depth to form a first aperture in the front side of the semiconductor wafer; forming a protective layer (340) on the front side of the semiconductor wafer (fig. 5) and performing a first turning-over of the semiconductor wafer to a back side of the semiconductor wafer (fig. 6); exposing a bottom of the first aperture (390) to form a second aperture in the back side of the semiconductor wafer (310); and performing a second turning-over of the semiconductor wafer to the front side of the semiconductor wafer and removing the protective layer (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Mattis discloses in the formation of the second aperture, the second aperture becomes connected to the first aperture once the protective layer is removed (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, as best the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, Mattis discloses a width of the first aperture is less than a width of the second aperture.
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattis in view of Epler et al., US 20130313562.
Regarding claim 6, Mattis discloses the use protective layer/material (340). However, Mattis does not explicitly discloses the layer is formed of photoresist (PR) or polyimide, a carbon-based material.
Epler discloses (fig. 5 and related text) the use of protective material (36) to protect the package substrate during subsequent processes [0052].
Mattis and Epler are analogous art because they both are directed a semiconductor process and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Mattis with specified features of Epler because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mattis to include polyimide as taught by Epler to protect the substrate during subsequent processes [0052].
Claims 3-5 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.
Allowance
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
Reason for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination at least the limitation “forming a nitride layer on the first oxide layer; forming, on the nitride layer, at least one second oxide layer in which a metal wire is formed; etching an upmost second oxide layer of the at least one second oxide layer to a predetermined depth to form a first aperture having a first width on a front side of the semiconductor wafer; forming a protective layer on the first aperture; etching a back side of the semiconductor wafer to form a second aperture, having a second width, connected to the first aperture; and removing the protective layer” as recited in claim 8 is the first major difference between the prior art and the claimed invention and the second major difference is the limitation “forming a first oxide layer, a silicon nitride layer, and a second oxide layer in a semiconductor wafer, wherein the second oxide layer comprises a contact plug and a metal wire; etching the first oxide layer and the second oxide layer to form a first aperture having a first width; forming a protective layer on the first aperture; etching another side of the semiconductor wafer to form a second aperture, having a second width, connected to the first aperture; and removing the protective layer” as recited in claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1653. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811