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 statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been 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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1: “a particle lands at a bonding interface resulting in an exclusion zone that is at least two times smaller than a bonding of two bonding surfaces with no nanostructures”
Claim 6: “wherein said nanostructures are absent wherever one or more island structures are to be found.”
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
4004 has been used to refer to two different features (see Fig. 40B and Fig. 40C)
[0332] needs revision on numbering of “good dies” (4026 versus 4206)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the applicant recites “the particle lands” and believes that the recitation should be “a .
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 1-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the applicant recites “at least two times smaller than a bonding of two bonding surfaces with no nanostructures” but the “bonding” parameter is never identified and quantifiable to a person having ordinary skill in the art (is it a dimension or an area, etc.).
Regarding Claim 2, the applicant recites “to less than one of 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, 2% and 1% of an area of said first or second bonding surface” but those surfaces are never identified and quantifiable to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, the applicant recites “delaminating a bond between said first bonding surface and said second bonding surface” but a bond was already referred to in claim 1 in this location and it is unclear if that is the same bond or a different one. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner presumes this is the bond recited in claim 1 between the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface.
Claims 3-10 are indefiniteness due to inheriting all of the claim 1 limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chaji (US # 20190148321).
Regarding Claim 1, Chaji teaches a method for enhancing a yield of a bonding process (see [0060-61]), the method comprising:
performing an etch ([0061, 83, 99, 101]) on one or more of a first bonding surface (feature 104 on feature 106; [0083]) and a second bonding surface (pads on feature 108b) to create nanostructures (nanotextures on 120; [0083] describes structures) in said one or more of said first bonding surface and said second bonding surface; and
bonding said first bonding surface with said second bonding surface ([0084; see also Fig. 1B]), wherein a particle lands at a bonding interface resulting in an exclusion zone that is at least two times smaller than a bonding of two bonding surfaces with no nanostructures (this is not explicit, but particles are inevitably a natural impurity in such a manufacturing process; also this is treated as a statement of the result of the first two positively recited steps (etching surfaces and bonding surfaces)).
Regarding Claim 3, Chaji teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said bonding comprises one of the following: fusion bonding, hybrid bonding, direct bonding, anodic bonding, covalent bonding and adhesive bonding (liquid curing agent 1512 is an adhseive; see [0136]).
Regarding Claim 9, Chaji teaches a method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: performing in-liquid alignment during said bonding (liquid curing agent 1512; see [0136]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaji (US # 20190148321).
Regarding Claim 2, Chaji teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein presence of said nanostructures reduces an area of contact during said bonding to less than one of 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, 2% and 1%o of an area of said first or second bonding surface (nanostructure diameter, length, and concentration/pitch in a pad area are all engineered to maximize bonding ([0068-39, 73, 75, 84, 99]).
Claims 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaji (US # 20190148321) in view of Gao (US # 20200075520).
Regarding Claim 4, although Chaji discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said bonding is utilized for face to face bonding or face to back bonding.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Gao is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches both orientations: including face-to-face bonding (surface 1100 and 1102, see Fig. 11 and [0068]; see also Fig. 8 and corresponding text).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the bonding method of Chaji with the orientations suggested by Gao would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Gao would be to employ a method as recited in claim 1, wherein said bonding is utilized for face to face bonding or face to back bonding. The rationale for this obvious modification is that providing front- and back-surface bonding provides multilayer die stack options, which yields better device density.
Regarding Claim 5, although Chaji discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said bonding is utilized for creation of one or more of the following: 2.5D devices, 3D devices, High Bandwidth Memory (HIBM), logic over SRAM, SRAM over logic, DRAM over logic, logic over DRAM, logic over memory, memory over logic, logic over imager array and imager array over logic.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Gao teaches the methods for creation of one or more of the following: 2.5D devices, 3D devices, High Bandwidth Memory (HIBM), logic over SRAM, SRAM over logic, DRAM over logic, logic over DRAM, logic over memory, memory over logic, logic over imager array and imager array over logic (see Fig. 6 and [0066]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the bonding method of Chaji with the HBM suggested by Gao would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Gao would be to employ a method as recited in claim 1, wherein said bonding is utilized for creation of one or more of the following: 2.5D devices, 3D devices, High Bandwidth Memory (HIBM), logic over SRAM, SRAM over logic, DRAM over logic, logic over DRAM, logic over memory, memory over logic, logic over imager array and imager array over logic. The rationale for this obvious modification is that providing High Bandwidth Memory (HIBM) provides high performance functions, such as low latency and low power consumption, making it ideal for high-performance computing, AI, and GPU applications.
Regarding Claim 6, although Chaji discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said nanostructures are absent wherever one or more island structures are to be found.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Gao teaches surface texturing in selecting regions and not other regions, including forming nanopores and the surface of recesses 506 and 508 (Figs. 5; and corresponding text starting at [0048]) and those same nanopores absent from other portions (active area 504).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the bonding method of Chaji with the variety of nanopore and non-nanopore features suggested by Gao would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Gao would be to employ a method as recited in claim 1, wherein said nanostructures are absent wherever one or more island structures are to be found. The rationale for this obvious modification is that providing non-nanopore bonding provides areas for direct metal-to-metal contact, which is relied upon for vertical conduction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 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 and to include 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 7, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: delaminating a bond between said first bonding surface and said second bonding surface, wherein hydrofluoric acid or vapor hydrofluoric acid is used to delaminate said bond between said first bonding surface and said second bonding surface.
Regarding Claim 8, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said first and second bonding surfaces are delaminated using a mechanical pulling approach.
Regarding Claim 10, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said nanostructures are kinked to enhance their ability to reduce particle-induced exclusion zones at said bonding interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights