DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's claim amendments filed 5/5/26 have been fully considered and a claim rejection is detailed below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premachandran et al., US 8,729,695, in view of Kishimoto et al., US 8,723,400.
Regrading claim 18, Premachandran (figure 2) teaches a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a semiconductor device 104 defining a cavity; and
a cap structure 108 bonded to the semiconductor device 104; and
a eutectic bond 112/140 (column 14, lines 7-15).
Premachandran fails to teach the semiconductor device 104 comprising a first bonding layer; the cap structure 108 comprises a second bonding layer bonded to the first bonding layer and defining the cavity, wherein the second bonding layer includes a surface and a protrusion protruding from the surface; and the eutectic bond formed between the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer, wherein the eutectic bond has a first thickness at the protrusion less than a second thickness at the surface.
Kishimoto (figures 2, 3, 5-8) teaches the semiconductor device 44 comprising a first bonding layer 46 (figure 2); the cap structure 6 comprises a second bonding layer 62 (figure 3) bonded to the first bonding layer 46 and defining the cavity (figure 5), wherein the second bonding layer 62 includes a surface and a protrusion (figure 8) protruding from the surface; and the eutectic bond 8 (figure 5) formed between the first bonding layer 46 and the second bonding layer 62, wherein the eutectic bond 8 (figure 5) has a first thickness at the protrusion (figure 8) than a second thickness at the surface. Figure 5 shows there is no eutectic bond at the surface therefore there is no second thickness at the surface.
With respect to claim 19, though Premachandran and Kishimoto fail to teach an oxide layer adjacent to the protrusion between the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an oxide layer in the invention of Premachandran and Kishimoto because an oxide layer is a natural byproduct of exposure to air. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 20, Premachandran (column 14, lines 9 teaches 112 is a ring) and Kishimoto (figure 2) teaches the eutectic bond includes a ring shape from a top-view perspective.
In re claim 21, Premachandran (figure 2) teaches a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a semiconductor device 104; and
a cap structure 108 bonded to the semiconductor device 104; and
a eutectic bond 112/140, wherein the eutectic bond 112/140 has a first thickness at the protrusion less than a second thickness at the surface.
a eutectic bond 112/140 (column 14, lines 7-15).
Premachandran fails to teach the semiconductor device 104 comprising a first bonding layer; the cap structure 108 comprises a second bonding layer bonded to the first bonding layer and defining the cavity, wherein the second bonding layer includes a surface and a protrusion protruding from the surface; and the eutectic bond formed between the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer, wherein the eutectic bond has a first thickness at the protrusion less than a second thickness at the surface.
Kishimoto (figures 2, 3, 5-8) teaches the semiconductor device 44 comprising a first bonding layer 46 (figure 2); the cap structure 6 comprises a second bonding layer 62 (figure 3) bonded to the first bonding layer 46 and defining the cavity (figure 5), wherein the second bonding layer 62 includes a surface and a protrusion (figure 8) protruding from the surface; and the eutectic bond 8 (figure 5) formed between the first bonding layer 46 and the second bonding layer 62, wherein the eutectic bond 8 (figure 5) has a first thickness at the protrusion (figure 8) than a second thickness at the surface. Figure 5 shows there is no eutectic bond at the surface therefore there is no second thickness at the surface.
Concerning claim 22, though Premachandran and Kishimoto fail to teach an oxide layer adjacent to the protrusion between the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an oxide layer in the invention of Premachandran and Kishimoto because an oxide layer is a natural byproduct of exposure to air. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 23, Premachandran (column 14, lines 9 teaches 112 is a ring) and Kishimoto (figure 2) teaches the eutectic bond includes a ring shape from a top-view perspective.
In re claim 24, Kishimoto (figure 2) teaches the first bonding layer 46 includes a ring shape from a top-view perspective.
Regarding claim 25, Kishimoto (figure 2) teaches the second bonding layer 62 includes a ring shape from a top-view perspective.
With respect to claim 26, Kishimoto (figure 5) teaches the eutectic bond 8 further comprises a third thickness between the first thickness and the second thickness at a location between the surface and the protrusion (figure 8).
As to claim 27, Kishimoto (column 6, lines 23-28 teaches a W/Ni/Au layer) teaches the first bonding layer comprises germanium, aluminum, aluminum copper, gold, silver, indium, tin, or a combination thereof.
In re claim 28, though Kishimoto fails to teach the eutectic bond comprises an aluminum-germanium alloy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an aluminum-germanium alloy in the invention of Kishimoto because it is a conventionally known equivalent eutectic. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Concerning claim 29, Kishimoto (figure 5) teaches the first bonding layer 46 covers the eutectic bond 81.
Pertaining to claim 30, Premachandran (figure 2) teaches a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a semiconductor device 104; and
a cap structure 108 bonded to the semiconductor device 104; and
a eutectic bond 112/140.
Premachandran fails to teach the semiconductor device 104 comprising a first bonding layer; the cap structure 108 comprises a second bonding layer bonded to the first bonding layer and defining the cavity, wherein the second bonding layer includes a surface and a protrusion protruding from the surface; and the eutectic bond formed between the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer, wherein the eutectic bond has a first thickness at the protrusion less than a second thickness at the surface.
Kishimoto (figures 2, 3, 5-8) teaches the semiconductor device 44 comprising a first bonding layer 46 (figure 2); the cap structure 6 comprises a second bonding layer 62 (figure 3) bonded to the first bonding layer 46 and defining the cavity (figure 5), wherein the second bonding layer 62 includes a surface and a protrusion (figure 8) protruding from the surface; and the eutectic bond 8 (figure 5) formed between the first bonding layer 46 and the second bonding layer 62, wherein the eutectic bond 8 (figure 5) has a first thickness at the protrusion (figure 8) than a second thickness at the surface. Figure 5 shows there is no eutectic bond at the surface therefore there is no second thickness at the surface.
In claim 31, though Premachandran and Kishimoto fail to teach an oxide layer adjacent to the protrusion between the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an oxide layer in the invention of Premachandran and Kishimoto because an oxide layer is a natural byproduct of exposure to air. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 32, Premachandran (column 14, lines 9 teaches 112 is a ring) and Kishimoto (figure 2) teaches the eutectic bond includes a ring shape from a top-view perspective.
With respect to claim 33, Kishimoto (figure 2) teaches the first bonding layer 46 includes a ring shape from a top-view perspective.
As to claim 34, Kishimoto (figure 2) teaches the second bonding layer 62 includes a ring shape from a top-view perspective.
In re claim 35, Kishimoto (figure 5) teaches the eutectic bond 8 further comprises a third thickness between the first thickness and the second thickness at a location between the surface and the protrusion (figure 8).
As to claim 36, Kishimoto (column 6, lines 23-28 teaches a W/Ni/Au layer) teaches the first bonding layer comprises germanium, aluminum, aluminum copper, gold, silver, indium, tin, or a combination thereof.
In re claim 37, though Kishimoto fails to teach the eutectic bond comprises an aluminum-germanium alloy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an aluminum-germanium alloy in the invention of Kishimoto because it is a conventionally known equivalent eutectic. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teaches similar concepts to the invention.
Any inquiry should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE at (571)272-1937. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. The fax number is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 5/12/26
Prosecution Insights