DETAILED ACTION
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 5/16/2024, 12/1/2025 and 4/5/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter of claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the first thickness is equal to the second thickness, and wherein a thickness of the first chiplets is less than a thickness of the second chiplets”, which does not appear to be shown in the Drawings of the current application. For example, lines 5-13 of claim 18 details a first plurality of chiplets bonded directly to first portions of the backside capping layer, and the first portions have a first thickness, while a second plurality of chiplets are bonded to metal backfill plugs and it is the second plurality of chiplets added to the metal backfill plugs which have a second thickness. Thereby, using Figure 5 of the Drawings as a reference it appears the “first thickness” is associated the backside capping layer 370 wherein the plurality of first chiplets 130a are directly bonded to, which appears to be marked as “tea” and the “second thickness” appears to be the combined thicknesses of the second plurality of chiplets 130b and the metal backfill plugs 133, which appears to be marked as “twa”. Thus, the Drawings do not show “wherein the first thickness is equal to the second thickness”, since as shown in Figure 5 the second thickness “twa” is clearly greater than the first thickness “tea”. Additionally, the Drawings do not show “wherein a thickness of the first chiplets is less than a thickness of the second chiplets”, since as shown in Figure 5 the first plurality of chiplets 130a have a greater thickness that the second plurality of chiplets 130b. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in lines 3, 4-5 and 21 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second cavities” in lines 4 and 6 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second cavities”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second plurality of areas” in line 5 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second plurality of areas”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second side surfaces” in lines 6 and 16 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second side surfaces”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 1 and 2 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 3 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line 2 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 4 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line(s) 2 and 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 4 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 6 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 3 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 6 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line(s) 3 and 9 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “130” in line 7 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests removing.
Claim 8 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 9 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line 5 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 9 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second side surfaces” in line 5 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second side surfaces”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 3 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in lines 2-3 and 21 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second cavities” in lines 2 and 4 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second cavities”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second plurality of areas” in line 3 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second plurality of areas”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second side surfaces” in lines 4, 15- 16 and 20 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second side surfaces”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line(s) 15 and 20 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s) “the first chiplets” in line(s) 17 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the first plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 18 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 12 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 1 and 2 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 12 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line(s) 2 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 13 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 13 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line(s) 2 and 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) “the metal backfill plug, at least one of:” in line(s) 1 of the claim, which appears grammatically incorrect and thus the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plug, is at least one of:”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line(s) 3 and 9 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line(s) 9 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 3 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “130” in line 7 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests removing.
Claim 17 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line(s) 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line 3 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second cavities” in lines 2 and 4 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second cavities”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second plurality of areas” in line 3 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second plurality of areas”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s) “first and a second side surfaces” in lines 4 and 15- 16 of the claim, which is grammatically incorrect, and thus the Examiner suggests amending the limitation(s) to “first and second side surfaces”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line(s) 15 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s) “the first chiplets” in line(s) 18 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the first plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 18 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 19 recites the limitation(s) “the plugs” in line(s) 2 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the metal backfill plugs”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 19 recites the limitation(s) “the second chiplets” in line(s) 1 and 2 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the second plurality of chiplets”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 20 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Claim 21 recites the limitation(s) “the wafer” in line 4 of the claim, which the Examiner suggests amending to “the host wafer”, because it appears the claimed element was originally introduced using that specific language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the first thickness is equal to the second thickness, and wherein a thickness of the first chiplets is less than a thickness of the second chiplets”, which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed Specification of the current application. For example, lines 5-13 of claim 18 details a first plurality of chiplets bonded directly to first portions of the backside capping layer, and the first portions have a first thickness, while a second plurality of chiplets are bonded to metal backfill plugs and it is the second plurality of chiplets added to the metal backfill plugs which have a second thickness. Thereby, using Figure 5 of the Drawings and the associated sections of the Specification as a reference it appears the “first thickness” is associated the backside capping layer 370 wherein the plurality of first chiplets 130a are directly bonded to, which appears to be marked as “tea” and the “second thickness” appears to be the combined thicknesses of the second plurality of chiplets 130b and the metal backfill plugs 133, which appears to be marked as “twa”. Thus, the originally filed Specification of the current application does not support “wherein the first thickness is equal to the second thickness, and wherein a thickness of the first chiplets is less than a thickness of the second chiplets”, since as detailed in paragraphs [0027], [0033], [0038] and [0051] of the Specification the first thickness is no equal to the second thickness, and the first plurality of chiplets 130a have a greater thickness than the second plurality of chiplets 130b.
Note the dependent claims 19-21 do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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 1-21 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 the limitation “the first backsides” (plural form) in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note, the limitation “a first backside” (singular form) is not sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first backsides” (plural form).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second backsides” (plural form) in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note, the limitation “a second backside” (singular form) is not sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second backsides” (plural form).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first and second side surfaces of the wafer” in line 21 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “first thickness” in line 18 of the claim, however “a first thickness” element was already introduced earlier in line 10 of the claim, and thereby it is unclear whether the “first thickness” in line 18 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the first thickness” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 3 recites “side surfaces [of the second plurality of chiplets]” in line 2 of the claim, however “side surfaces [of the second plurality of chiplets]” element was already introduced earlier in lines 18-19 of the claim 1, which claim 3 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “side surfaces [of the second plurality of chiplets]” in line 2 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the side surfaces [of the second plurality of chiplets]” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 4 recites “side surfaces [of the plugs]” in line 2 of the claim, however “side surfaces [of the plugs]” element was already introduced earlier in line 2 of the claim 3, which claim 4 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “side surfaces [of the plugs]” in line 2 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the side surfaces [of the plugs]” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second sides of the plugs” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the side surfaces of the wafer” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the metal backfill plug” (singular form) in line 1 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 2 previously introduces “metal backfill plugs” (plural form) in line 2 of the claim, which claim 6 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “metal backfill plug” element is being referenced in the limitation “the metal backfill plug” in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation(s) “the chiplets” in line(s) 4, 5 and 7 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 1 previously introduces both first and second plurality of chiplets, which claim 6 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “chiplets” are being referenced in the limitations “the chiplets” in line(s) 4, 5 and 7 of the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first chiplet” (singular form) in line 9 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 1 previously introduces “first plurality of chiplets” (plural form), which claim 6 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “first chiplet” element is being referenced in the limitation “the first chiplet” in line 9 of the claim. Additionally, the limitation should be amended to use the same specific language used when the claimed element was originally introduced.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the second chiplet” (singular form) in line 9 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 1 previously introduces “second plurality of chiplets” (plural form), which claim 6 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “second chiplet” element is being referenced in the limitation “the second chiplet” in line 9 of the claim. Additionally, the limitation should be amended to use the same specific language used when the claimed element was originally introduced.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a range between 200 x 20 µm” in line 3 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because “200 x 20 µm” is not a type of range, it appears to be a singular number, because “x” is taken to be the multiplication operator and thus, 200 multiplied by 20 µm is 4000 µm.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the top surface” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first backsides” (plural form) in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note, the limitation “a first backside” (singular form) is not sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first backsides” (plural form).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the second backsides” (plural form) in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note, the limitation “a second backside” (singular form) is not sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second backsides” (plural form).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first, side surfaces of the second plurality of chiplets” in lines 14-15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the side surfaces of the first plurality of chiplets” in lines 19-20 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first and second side surfaces of the wafer” in lines 20-21 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “side surfaces of the plug” in line 2 of the claim, however “side surfaces of the plug” element was already introduced earlier in line 15 of claim 11, which claim 13 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “side surfaces of the plug” in line 2 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the side surfaces of the plug” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the second side surfaces of the plugs” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the side surfaces of the wafer” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) “the chiplets” in line(s) 4, 5 and 7 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 11 previously introduces both first and second plurality of chiplets, which claim 15 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “chiplets” are being referenced in the limitations “the chiplets” in line(s) 4, 5 and 7 of the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first chiplet” (singular form) in line 9 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 11 previously introduces “first plurality of chiplets” (plural form), which claim 15 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “first chiplet” element is being referenced in the limitation “the first chiplet” in line 9 of the claim. Additionally, the limitation should be amended to use the same specific language used when the claimed element was originally introduced.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the second chiplet” (singular form) in line 9 of the claim, which is indefinite and unclear, because claim 11 previously introduces “second plurality of chiplets” (plural form), which claim 15 depends from, and thus it is unclear which specific “second chiplet” element is being referenced in the limitation “the second chiplet” in line 9 of the claim. Additionally, the limitation should be amended to use the same specific language used when the claimed element was originally introduced.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the top surface” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the first backsides” (plural form) in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note, the limitation “a first backside” (singular form) is not sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first backsides” (plural form).
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second backsides” (plural form) in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note, the limitation “a second backside” (singular form) is not sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second backsides” (plural form).
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the first, side surfaces of the second plurality of chiplets” in lines 14-15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “side surfaces of the plug” in line 2 of the claim, however “side surfaces of the plug” element was already introduced earlier in line 15 of claim 18, which claim 20 depends from, and thereby it is unclear whether the “side surfaces of the plug” in line 2 of the claim is directed to that same element and therefore should be properly amended to “the side surfaces of the plug” or directed to an entirely different element and therefore should be amended with specific language to distinguish it from the already introduced element.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the second side surfaces of the plugs” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the side surfaces of the wafer” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the one of a a non-electrically conductive lateral epoxy material or lateral dielectric material” in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note the dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-21 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the object subject matter and/or the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 15 of Horiuchi et al. (US 2011/0012266 A1, hereinafter “Horiuchi”) discloses an electronic assembly comprising:
a backside capping layer 16b (“insulating layer”- ¶0050) having a top surface and a back surface;
a host wafer 13 (“substrate”- ¶0050) having front and back surfaces, the back surface of the wafer 13 bonded to the top surface of the backside capping layer 16b except for first and a second cavities in the wafer 13 formed over a first and a second plurality of areas of the top surface of the backside capping layer 16b, the first and a second cavities having first and a second side surfaces;
a first plurality of chiplets 14 (“semiconductor chip”- ¶0050, specifically the 14 on the left side) having a first chiplet thickness, a first backside and a first frontside, the first backsides of the first plurality of chiplets 14 bonded directly to at least first portions of the first plurality of areas of the top surface of the backside capping layer 16b, wherein the first portions have a first thickness of the backside capping layer 16b;
a second plurality of chiplets 14 (“semiconductor chip”- ¶0050, specifically the 14 on the right side) having a second chiplet thickness, a second backside and a second frontside, the second backsides of the second plurality of chiplets 14 bonded to at least second portions of the second plurality of areas of the top surface of the backside capping layer 16b, wherein the second portions have a second thickness of the backside capping layer 16b; and
a lateral bonding material 15 (“resin”- ¶0050) between side surfaces of the first and second plurality of chiplets 14 and the first and a second side surfaces of the first and second cavities; and
wherein the lateral bonding material bonds the side surfaces of the first and second plurality of chiplets 14 to the first and a second side surfaces of the wafer 3.
Horiuchi does not expressly disclose wherein the first chiplet thickness is greater than the second chiplet thickness and wherein first thickness of the backside capping layer is less than the second thickness of the backside capping layer.
Thus, regarding independent claim 1 (which claims 2-10 depend from), the prior art of record including Horiuchi, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the first chiplet thickness is greater than the second chiplet thickness” and “wherein first thickness of the backside capping layer is less than the second thickness of the backside capping layer”.
Regarding independent claim 11, Figure 15 of Horiuchi discloses an electronic assembly comprising:
a host wafer 13 (“substrate”- ¶0050) having front and back surfaces, and first and a second cavities in the wafer formed over a first and a second plurality of areas of the top surface of a backside capping layer 16b (“insulating layer”- ¶0050), the first and a second cavities having first and a second side surfaces;
a first plurality of chiplets 14 (“semiconductor chip”- ¶0050, specifically the 14 on the left side) having a first chiplet thickness, a first backside and a first frontside, the first backsides of the first plurality of chiplets 14 bonded directly to at least first portions of the first plurality of areas of the top surface of the backside capping layer 16b, wherein the first portions have a first thickness of the backside capping layer 16b;
a second plurality of chiplets 14 (“semiconductor chip”- ¶0050, specifically the 14 on the right side) having a second chiplet thickness, a second backside and a second frontside; and
a lateral bonding material 15 (“resin”- ¶0050) between side surfaces of the first, side surfaces of the second plurality of chiplets 14 and the first and a second side surfaces of the first and second cavities; and
wherein the lateral bonding material 15 bonds the side surfaces of the first plurality of chiplets 14 and the second plurality of chiplets 14 to the first and a second side surfaces of the wafer 13.
Horiuchi does not expressly disclose the second backsides of the second plurality of chiplets bonded to metal backfill plugs between the second backsides and the first thickness of the backside capping layer, wherein the second plurality of chiplets added to the metal backfill plugs have a second thickness, a lateral bonding material between side surfaces of the plugs, and the first and a second side surfaces of the first and second cavities, wherein the first thickness is equal to the second thickness, and wherein a thickness of the first chiplets is less than a thickness of the second chiplets, and wherein the lateral bonding material bonds the side surfaces of the plugs to the first and a second side surfaces of the wafer.
Thus, regarding independent claim 11 (which claims 12-17 depend from), the prior art of record including Horiuchi, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “the second backsides of the second plurality of chiplets bonded to metal backfill plugs between the second backsides and the first thickness of the backside capping layer, wherein the second plurality of chiplets added to the metal backfill plugs have a second thickness”, “a lateral bonding material between… side surfaces of the plugs, and the first and a second side surfaces of the first and second cavities”, “wherein the first thickness is equal to the second thickness, and wherein a thickness of the first chiplets is less than a thickness of the second chiplets” and “wherein the lateral bonding material bonds the side surfaces… of the plugs to the first and a second side surfaces of the wafer”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bonam et al. (US 10,943,883 B1), which discloses an electronic assembly comprising a plurality of chiplets disposed in cavities within a wafer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights