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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species 1 (Fig. 3A), claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments related to species I-IV and sub-species A-B are not found persuasive as applicant elected Group I for the device claims and elected generic species of Fig. 3A. The traversal is also not found persuasive because the claims directed towards apparatus (i.e. Group I) and the claims directed towards method (i.e. Group II) require a search indifferent CPC symbols. Furthermore for the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different subclasses or electronic resources or non patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. However based on applicant’s election of Fig. 3A, claims 1-16 read on this and all device claims are examined.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/08/2026.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in line 4 “..between the front insulating layer and the rear insulating layer..” is indefinite because the bonding not between the front insulating layer and the rear insulating layer of the same chip rather the bonding is a front insulating layer of a chip and a rear insulating layer of another chip. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “a rear insulating layer above the semiconductor substrate” which is not clear. From claim language it appears to be part of the same semiconductor chip which has a front insulating material. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claims 12-13, 16 defines “a height is greater than the width” but the height is defined 2.5 micron and the width is defined 5 micron which is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-13, 15-16 are also rejected being dependent on claims 1, 14.
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)(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, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2024/0021488 A1).
Regarding claim 14: Sun teaches in Fig. 11 about a semiconductor package 200 comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
640
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a semiconductor chip 101 comprising:
a front insulating layer 112 +162;
a plurality of front pads 114/113A-C surrounded by the front insulating layer;
a device layer 104 comprising a wiring structure 105 electrically connected to the plurality of front pads and above the front insulating layer;
a semiconductor substrate 102 above the device layer;
a through-via 110 penetrating through the semiconductor substrate 102; and
a rear insulating layer 160 [0036] above the semiconductor substrate,
wherein the front insulating layer has a step portion formed in an edge of a front surface of the front insulating layer (as marked above), and
wherein the front insulating layer comprises a burr 164 +111 in the step portion so as to overlap a portion of the front insulating layer in a front-rear direction (as shown).
Regarding claim 1: Sun teaches in Fig. 11 about a semiconductor package 200 comprising a plurality of semiconductor chips 101 and 150 each comprising a front insulating layer 112/176 and a rear insulating layer 106/162,
wherein the plurality of semiconductor chips are bonded to each other through a first direct bonding between the front insulating layer 112 and the rear insulating layer 162 [0053],
wherein at least one of the plurality of semiconductor chips comprises:
a device layer 104 comprises a wiring structure 105,
a semiconductor substrate 102 above the device layer,
a plurality of front pads 114/113A-C electrically connected to the wiring structure in front of the device layer, and
the front insulating layer surrounding the plurality of front pads in front of the device layer (as shown), and
wherein the front insulating layer comprises a burr (between 164 and 111) buried in an edge of a front surface of the front insulating layer.
Regarding claim 15: Sun teaches in [0034] and [0037] and wherein the burr comprises at least one of an insulating material in the device layer and a metallic material in the wiring structure.
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 of this title, 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 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sun et al. (US 2024/0021488 A1).
Regarding claim 16: Sun does not explicitly talk about wherein a height of the step portion is greater than a width of the step portion, wherein the height of the step portion is about 2.5 µm or more, and wherein the width of the step portion is about 5 µm or more.
PNG
media_image2.png
516
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However Sun shows in Fig. 11 the width is more than the height and the height can be 100 nm depending on the thinning process to improve the heat dissipation [0051]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was made to have the feature as claimed with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness of the bonding layer is critical in order to control heat dissipation according to the teaching of Sun ([0051]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 1-3, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hwang et al. (US 2020/0135699 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2024/0021488 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Hwang teaches in Fig. 1-2 about a semiconductor package 300A (Fig. 1) comprising
PNG
media_image3.png
498
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a plurality of semiconductor chips 100A-100D each comprising a front insulating layer 164b and a rear insulating layer 164a,
wherein the plurality of semiconductor chips are bonded to each other through a first direct bonding between the front insulating layer and the rear insulating layer [0028],
wherein at least one of the plurality of semiconductor chips comprises:
a device layer 120 comprises a wiring structure 140,
a semiconductor substrate 110 above the device layer,
a plurality of front pads 154 electrically connected to the wiring structure in front of the device layer, and
the front insulating layer surrounding the plurality of front pads in front of the device layer (as shown), and
wherein the front insulating layer comprises a burr buried in an edge of a front surface of the front insulating layer.
Hwang does not teach wherein the front insulating layer comprises a burr buried in an edge of a front surface of the front insulating layer.
Sun teaches in Fig. 11 about wherein the front insulating layer 112 comprises a burr (between 108 and 162) buried in an edge of a front surface of the front insulating layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was made to have the burr in an edge of a front surface of the front insulating layer to connect the thermal vias 164 and 111 and improve heat dissipation of the package structure (Sun, [0051]).
Regarding claim 2: Sun teaches in Fig. 11 wherein the burr is disposed to overlap a portion of the front insulating layer in a front-rear direction, and wherein a side surface of the burr is more recessed than a side surface of a portion of the front insulating layer overlapping the burr in the front-rear direction.
Regarding claim 3: Sun teaches in [0034] and [0037] wherein the burr comprises at least one of an insulating material in the device layer and a metallic material in the wiring structure.
Regarding claim 8: Hwang teaches in Fig. 2 a support insulating layer 162 between the device layer 120 and the front insulating layer 164a; and
a conductive pattern 152 surrounded by the support insulating layer, wherein the wiring structure comprises at least one of a wiring layer 142 and a wiring via 145, and wherein a thickness of the conductive pattern is greater than a thickness of the at least one of the wiring layer or the wiring via (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9: Hwang teaches in Fig. 2 wherein at least one of the plurality of semiconductor chips comprises:
a through-via 130 penetrating through the semiconductor substrate;
the rear insulating layer on a rear surface of the semiconductor substrate; and
a plurality of rear pads surrounded by the rear insulating layer and electrically connected to the through-via,
wherein the plurality of semiconductor chips are electrically connected to each other through a second direct bonding between the plurality of front pads and the plurality of rear pads (As shown).
Regarding claim 10: Hwang teaches in [0030] and [0026] wherein each of the front insulating layer, the support insulating layer, and the rear insulating layer comprises at least one of SiO2, SiN, SiCN, and tetraethyloxysilane (TEOS), wherein the plurality of front pads comprise copper or a copper alloy, and wherein the conductive pattern comprises at least one of copper, the copper alloy, aluminum, and an aluminum alloy.
Regarding claim 11: As explained in claim 14, Sun teaches in Fig. 11 about wherein the front insulating layer has a step portion in the edge of the front surface of the front insulating layer, and wherein the burr is disposed in the step portion so as to overlap a portion of the front insulating layer in a front-rear direction.
Regarding claims 12-13: Sun does not explicitly talk about wherein a height of the step portion is greater than a width of the step portion, wherein the height of the step portion is about 2.5 µm or more, and wherein the width of the step portion is about 5 µm or more.
PNG
media_image2.png
516
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However Sun shows in Fig. 11 the width is more than the height and the height can be 100 nm depending on the thinning process to improve the heat dissipation [0051]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was made to have the feature as claimed with routine experiment and optimization since the thickness of the bonding layer is critical in order to control heat dissipation according to the teaching of Sun ([0051]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hwang et al. (US 2020/0135699 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2024/0021488 A1) and further in view of Kweon et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0096678 A1)
Regarding claim 4: Hwang in view of Sun still does not talk about wherein the burr comprises an insulating material different from a material of the front insulating layer [0024].
However Sun teaches in [0024] the front insulating material is an insulating material and Kweon teaches in [0038] the burr may be may include an insulating material or a metal material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the material of the burr as claimed, 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5: Sun teaches wherein the front insulating layer comprises at least one of SiN, SiCN, and tetraethyloxysilane (TEOS) [0024], and wherein the burr comprises SiO2.
Hwang in view of Sun still does not talk about wherein the burr comprises SiO2.
However Sun teaches in [0024] the front insulating material is an insulating material and Kweon teaches in [0038] the burr may be may include an insulating material or a metal material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the material of the burr as claimed, 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6: Hwang in view of Sun still does not talk about wherein the burr comprises a metallic material different from a metallic material of the plurality of front pads.
Hwang teaches in [0026] , wherein the plurality of front pads comprises copper or a copper alloy and Kweon teaches in [0038] the burr may be may include an insulating material or a metal material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the material of the burr as claimed, 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7: Hwang teaches in [0026] , wherein the plurality of front pads comprises copper or a copper alloy, and wherein the burr comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
Hwang in view of Sun still does not talk about wherein the burr comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
However Kweon teaches in [0038] the burr may be may include an insulating material or a metal material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the material of the burr as claimed, 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm EST.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
