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
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 1-2, 8, 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al (US Publication No. 2020/0067170).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a semiconductor device in which a first structure that includes a first semiconductor substrate Fig 3, 21 ¶0037 on which a semiconductor element and an antenna configured to oscillate or receive an electromagnetic wave are arranged ¶0036-0038, a second structure that includes a second semiconductor substrate Fig 3, 11 on which a control circuit configured to control the semiconductor element is arranged¶0028, 0030-0031, 0039, and a third structure Fig 3, 20 that has a first bonding surface bonded to the first structure and a second bonding surface bonded to the second structure are stacked Fig 3, wherein a first conductor plug ¶0037-0038 electrically connected to the semiconductor element and reaching the first bonding surface is arranged in the first structure Fig 3, the third structure includes a base material layer Fig 3, 20 and a conductor layer stacked on each other Fig 3, and the third structure has a higher thermal conductivity than the first structure and the second structure ¶0039 ( third structure is a wiring structure).
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses wherein the electromagnetic wave includes a terahertz wave Fig 3.
Regarding claim 8, Sato discloses wherein the base material layer includes a first base material layer arranged between the first structure and the conductor layer, and a second base material layer arranged between the conductor layer and the second structure Fig 3.
Regarding claim 10, Sato discloses wherein the first structure comprises an active antenna array where a plurality of active antennas each including the semiconductor element and the antenna are arranged Fig 3 and Fig 11.
Regarding claim 20, Sato discloses an image capturing system comprising: the semiconductor device according to claim 1; and a detector configured to detect an electromagnetic wave reflected or emitted by an object ¶0027-0031 Fig 1-3.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US Publication No. 2020/0067170).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Sato discloses all the limitations but silent on the thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the third structure, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US Publication No. 2020/0067170) in view of Tamagawa et al (US Publication No. 2006/0043583).
Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses all the limitations but silent on the type of material used for the base material layer. Whereas Tamagawa discloses wherein the base material layer contains a ceramic ¶0048. Sato and Tamagawa are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having interposers and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sato because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material base layer and incorporate the teachings of Tamagawa 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US Publication No. 2020/0067170) in view of Tong et al (US Publication No. 2025/0174539).
Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses all the limitations but silent on the type of material used for the base material layer. Whereas Tong discloses wherein the base material layer contains at least one of aluminum nitride and graphite¶0061-0062. Sato and Tong are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having interposers and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sato because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material base layer and incorporate the teachings of Tong 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Regarding claim 7, Tong discloses wherein the thermal conductivity of the third structure is not less than 100 W/m·K ¶0061-0062.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US Publication No. 2020/0067170) in view of Franson et al (US Patent No.11,049,824).
Regarding claim 9, Sato discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the conductor plug. Whereas Franson discloses wherein the first conductor plug Fig 2, 27-1 extends through the first base material layer and is electrically connected to the conductor layer Fig 2. Sato and Franson are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sato because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the conductive plug and incorporate the teachings of Franson to improve device connectivity.
Regarding claim 11, Franson in view of Sato (Fig 3) discloses wherein the first structure includes a first wiring layer and a second wiring layer arranged between the first wiring layer and the third structure, the antenna includes a first conductor pattern arranged in the first wiring layer and electrically connected to the semiconductor element, and a second conductor pattern having a larger area than the first conductor pattern in an orthogonal projection with respect to the first bonding surface and electrically connected to the semiconductor element is arranged in the second wiring layer Fig 2.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US Publication No. 2020/0067170) in view of Syed et al (US Patent No. 9,379,090).
Regarding claim 13, Sato discloses all the limitations but silent on the thermal insulating layer. Whereas Syed discloses wherein a thermal insulating layer is arranged between the second semiconductor substrate and the third structure (Column 1, line 55-Column 2, line 5). Sato and Syed are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sato because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato’s device and incorporate the teachings of Syed for device temperature management. Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal conductivity of the layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses all the limitations but silent on the heat storage layer. Whereas Syed discloses wherein a heat storage layer is arranged in at least one of the first semiconductor substrate and the second semiconductor substrate (Column 1, line 55-Column 2, line 5). Sato and Syed are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sato because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato’s device and incorporate the teachings of Syed for device temperature management. Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific heat of the layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Regarding claim 15, Syed discloses wherein a heat dissipator using a conductor and in contact with an outer edge of the third structure is arranged (Column 2, line49-67).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US Publication No. 2020/0067170) in view of Koyama et al (US Publication No. 2022/0173515).
Regarding claim 17, Sato discloses all the limitations but silent on the type of semiconductor element. Whereas Koyama discloses wherein the semiconductor element includes a negative resistance element ¶0041-0042. Sato and Koyama are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sato because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the type of semiconductor element and incorporate the teachings of Koyama to improve device performance.
Regarding claim 18, Koyama discloses wherein the negative resistance element includes a resonant tunneling diode. ¶0041-0042
Regarding claim 19, Koyama discloses a communication apparatus comprising: the semiconductor device according to claim 1; a transmitter configured to emit the electromagnetic wave; and a receiver configured to detect the electromagnetic wave ¶0037.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 pm.
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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights