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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 4/18/2024 and 5/22/2025 have been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “a first film thickness of the third insulating layer being in contact with the first electrode is greater than a second film thickness of the third insulating layer” is unclear as to whether “being in contact” modifies the thickness or the layer. Examiner suggests ““a first film thickness of a portion of the third insulating layer being in contact with the first electrode is greater than a second film thickness of the third insulating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a length of the first electrode in the first direction is larger than a length of the second electrode in the first direction.” The metes and bound of this limitation cannot be determined because the claim does not recite from what point to what point the “length” is measured. The specification measures the corresponding dimensions Hmc2 and Hmw2 from the bonding surface of the first chip to the upper surface of the contact plug, i.e., across the combined pad and plug structure. Nothing in claim 1 ties the measurement to the bonding surface, to the upper surface of a contact plug, or to any other identifiable surface. One of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of the scope.
Claim 2 recites “a length of the first pad in the first direction is larger than a length of the second pad in the first direction.” For the reason discussed above (for claim 1), the measurement reference point for a “length” of the pad is not recited. Because of claim 1’s “length of the first electrode” is itself of indeterminate scope, the relationship between the claim 2 pad length and the claim 1 electrode length cannot be ascertained.
Claims 3 and 4 recites “a ratio of a length of the second contact plug in the first direction to the length of the second electrode”. Claim 1 provides antecedent basis only for “a length of the second electrode in the first direction”. It is unclear whether “the length of the second electrode” in claims 3 or claim 4 refer to that same dimension or to some other length of the second electrode (e.g., a lateral dimension).
Claim 5 recites “an aspect ratio of each of the first contact plug and the second contact plug is equal to or smaller than 1.5.” The claim does not define aspect ratio. The contact plugs as disclosed look conical, having an upper end diameter and a slower end diameter that differ. However, the recited numerical limit yields different results depending on which diameter is selected as the denominator (AR = “height of the cone” / “diameter of the cone”), for that reason, the claim fails to inform, a person of ordinary skill in the art, of its bound.
Claim 7 recites that “a first surface of the first chip is bonded to the second chip, and a lower surface of the first electrode and a lower surface of the second electrode are arranged in the first surface.” A surface is a two-dimensional boundary; it is unclear whether applicant intends that the electrode lower surfaces are coplanar with, or exposed at the first surface. Examiner suggest “a first surface of the first chip is bonded to the second chip, and a lower surface of the first electrode and a lower surface of the second electrode are coplanar with the first surface.”
Claims 8 and 14 recites that the lengths of the first and second contact plugs are “approximately same,” and Claim 14 recites that the film thickness of the third and fourth interconnect layers are “approximately same.” Neither of the claims nor the specification provides a standard for measuring the degree of approximation intended, no tolerance, percentage, or other objective boundary is given. The terms of degree render the claims indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(b).
Claim 16 recites “a ratio of a length of the third contact plug in the first direction to a length of the third electrode in the first direction.” For the reason discussed above (for claim 1), the measurement reference point for a “length” is not recited.
Claim 17 recites “an aspect ratio of each of the third contact plug is equal to or smaller than 1.5.” The claim does not define aspect ratio. The contact plugs as disclosed look conical, having an upper end diameter and a slower end diameter that differ. However, the recited numerical limit yields different results depending on which diameter is selected as the denominator (AR = (height of the cone)/ (“diameter” of the cone), for that reason, the claim fails to inform, a person of ordinary skill in the art, of its bound.
Claim 19 recites “a second conductor provided in a side surface and the upper surface of the first pad and a side surface and an upper surface of the first contact plug; and a third conductor being in contact with the second conductor and provided in the second conductor.” It is unclear whether the third conductor is disposed within a recess defined by the second conductor, or embedded within the material of the second conductor. Furthermore, a conductor provided in a surface is unclear, and it appears applicant may intend “on”.
Claims 6, 9-13, 15 and 20 are also rejected as they are directly or indirectly depending on already rejected independent claim 1.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights