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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 1, 2026 was considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
Examiner withdraws the drawing objections based upon the submission of new figures.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 2020/0075534 A1) (“Gao”).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2:
a first die (top part of figure 1; hereinafter “A”) having a plurality (figure 2) of first metal pads (100) at a first bonding side (where 100 is; hereinafter “B”);
a second die (bottom part of figure 1; hereinafter “C”) over the first die (A), having a plurality of second metal pads (100’) at a second bonding side facing the first bonding side (where 100’ is; hereinafter “D”),
wherein each of the first metal pads (100) corresponds to each of the second metal pads (100’) with a pitch no greater than about 10 μm (¶ 0002, where the pitch can be as small a 1 μm);
a first dielectric layer (top 108) surrounding and in contact with a sidewall of the first metal pads (100);
a second dielectric layer (bottom 108) surrounding and in contact with the first dielectric layer (top 108) and a sidewall of the second metal pads (100’); and
a soft metal (SM) section (a middle section of 110; ¶ 0070; the soft metal section can be any metal copper is known as a soft metal) or a solder section between each of the first metal pads (100/812) and the second metal pads (100’/812),
wherein the SM Section (a middle section of 110) or the solder section is laterally surrounded by a stack of the first dielectric layer (top 108) and the second dielectric layer (bottom 108), and
wherein a width of the first metal pad (100) and a width of the second metal pad (100’) are substantially the same (100 and 100’ are shown in figure 1 to be substantially the same).
Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 8-9:
wherein the second die is a micro-LED die, a processor die, or a chiplet (¶ 0066).
Regarding claim 6, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 8-9:
An interference between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer(where 108 meets 108) is located at a vertical level of a midpoint of the SM section or the solder section (the 108 meets at the claimed midpoint).
Regarding claim 6, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 8-9:
wherein a first segment of a sidewall of the second dielectric layer (bottom 108; 804/820) proximal to the second die (C) is in contact with the sidewall of the second metal pad (110’), and
a second segment of the sidewall of the second dielectric layer (bottom 108; 804/820) proximal to the first die (A) is in contact with the sidewall of the SM section or the solder section (824/834).
Regarding claim 8, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 8-9:
wherein the material of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer comprises silicon dioxide or polymer (¶¶ 0004, 35, and 43, where silicon oxide can be used).
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) 3, 7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao.
Regarding claim 3, Gao does not explicitly teach:
wherein a dimension of the second die is less than about 10 μm by 10 μm.
However, making a die smaller or larger is considered a change in size or proportion. The Court has held in In Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984) where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is the size of the second die. This does not render the claim patentably distinct from the prior art because if the prior art device was made to the same size it would not perform differently than the claimed device.
Regarding claim 7, Gao does not explicitly teach:
wherein a height ratio of the second segment and the first segment is in a range of from 25% to 85%.
However, this is considered a change in size or proportion for the same reason give in claim 3, where the height ratio of the claimed feature is not patentably distinct from the prior art as the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art with the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 9, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 8-9:
a first die (bottom part of figure 1; hereinafter “C”) ;
a second die (top part of figure 1; hereinafter “A”) disposed over the first die (C); and
a bonding layer (detailed below) between the first die (C) and the second die (A),
the bonding layer comprises:
a plurality of first metal pads (lower 812; figure 2 shows the plurality. It would have obvious that while a single metal pad is shown in the figures there would be a plurality based upon the disclosure) each stacked with a first barrier layer (lower 814) and connected to the first die (C), and
a first dielectric bonding material (lower 804/820) contacting a sidewall of each of the plurality of first metal pads (lower 812) and a sidewall of the first barrier layer (lower 814);
a plurality of second metal pads (upper 812; figure 2 shows the plurality. It would have obvious that while a single metal pad is shown in the figures there would be a plurality based upon the disclosure) each stacked with a second barrier layer (upper 814) and connected to the second die (A), and
a second dielectric bonding material (upper 804/820) contacting a sidewall of each of the plurality of second metal pads (upper 812) and a sidewall of the second barrier layer (upper 814); and
a soft metal (SM) section or a solder section (824/834) between each of the first metal pads (lower 812) and each of the second metal pads (upper 812),
wherein the SM Section (a middle section of 110) or the solder section is laterally surrounded by a stack of the first dielectric layer (top 108) and the second dielectric layer (bottom 108), and
wherein a width of the first metal pad (100) and a width of the second metal pad (100’) are substantially the same (100 and 100’ are shown in figure 1 to be substantially the same).
Regarding claim 10, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 8-9:
wherein a thickness of each SM section or the solder section is in a range of from about 1 μm to about 2 μm (¶ 0058, where the thickness can be 1.6 μm).
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 contains subject matter of claims 2-3, and rejected for the same reasons as those given above.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 contains subject matter from claim 1 is and is rejected for the same reason given in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches at least in figures 1-2, and 8-9:
Wherein a sidewall of the SM section or the solder section (824/834) is in contact with both of the first dielectric layer (100/820) and the second dielectric layer (100’/820) (the middle section of 110 can be considered to be contacting both 100 and 100’),
wherein a melting point of the SM section or the solder section (824/834) is no greater than about 250°C (table 1 where the melting/diffusion temperature is 150 C).
However, Gao teaches:
The first and second metal pads are not melting together. Rather, they are diffusing together. Melting is changing the phase of a material, while diffusion is moving particles from one place to another. Gao teaches that the bond between the first metal pad and the second metal pad is the result of diffusion and not melting. While the result is the same, the physical connection between the first metal pad and the second metal pad, copper is not generally known to melt, or change phase, at 250 C or less. Thus, it would not have the claimed melting point characteristic.
Regarding claim 13,
The amendments to claim 9 would require Examiner to combine Shao with Gao. However, Gao is directed to a different method of attachment. Examiner looked at combing Gao with Shao (the reverse combination), however, the issue with this is the location of the dielectric layers. Based upon Shao there is no reason to put the top dielectric lower to have the SM section or solder section laterally surround it as intended, and shown in Applicant’s figure 6. Therefore, the amendments to claim 9 remove Shao as a reference. However, claim 9 is still rejected under Gao. This leads to claim 13.
Claim 13 is only rejected under Shao. Examiner has no reason reject claim 13 under Gao. Therefore, claim 13 is allowable as the art to reject claim 13 has been overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The crux of Applicant’s arguments, and Examiner rejection is based upon the line “a soft metal (SM) section or solder section”. This limitation is read as either a soft metal or a solder section. Two different limitations of which either can be met. In the analysis above Examiner met the soft metal section as copper is widely known to be a soft metal. The section of soft metal is the section where the two copper halves meet. It is not until the allowable claims, claims 4 and 13, does Applicant further limit the above limitation such that Examiner can no longer rely upon Gao and copper being a soft metal.
For all the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments concerning the independent claims is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
