DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 6/18/26
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (devices), species A (Fig.1; roughly summarized as a first contact on one substrate connected to a second contact on a second substrate), and subspecies E (two IC chips), in the reply filed on 8/17/26 is acknowledged. Applicant canceled numerous non-elected claims at the time of election.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 35-36, 41-44, 49-57 is/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.
Claims 35 and 55 recite the limitation [“to providing” or “providing”] “a seamless interconnection between the first electrical contact … and the second electrical contact ...”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is unclear what type of structure is required by the “seamless interconnection between the first electrical contact … and the second electrical contact…”
Applicant uses the term “seamless interconnection” many times in the specification, but never defines its meaning.
“Seam” is defined by Merriam Webster (see online version at merriam-webster.com, reproduced below) in four ways, the first two clearly not applicable to semiconductor devices. The meanings of definitions 3 and 4 would be applicable.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Fig. 1B (see below) clearly shows a conductive metal between the first and second electrical contacts that meets definitions 3 and 4. It meets (3a) in that there are various lines between the first and second electrical contacts (at the boundary of the conductive material and the first electrical contact; at the boundary of the conductive material and the second electrical contact); it meets (3b) in that the conductive material is a thin layer between the distinctive layers of the first and second electrical contacts; it meets (4) in that a conductive material between the first and second electrical contacts would be a possibly “weak” or “vulnerable” area because it is made of a different material than those of the first and second electrical contacts.
PNG
media_image2.png
354
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, because the specification has not made it clear how the invention provides a seamless interconnection between the first electrical contact on the first substrate and the second electrical contact on the second substrate.
Claims 41-44 and 51-57 depend from claim 35 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claims 36 and 56 recite the limitation [the metal] “is substantially absent...”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons:
The term "substantially" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Substantially” is defined as "being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “substantially” defines a target (“absent” from surfaces) and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary.
For example, it is unclear how much of a surface may be covered and still be “substantially absent” from the surface. It is unclear if it may be 0.01%, 0.1%,, 0.2%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, or some other percentage of its area, and which of these is “too much” to be “substantially absent”.
Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claims 49-50 depend from claim 36 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “about 150 nm” and “about 15 nm”. Claim 42 recites the limitation “about 1.5 µm.” Claim 43 recites the limitation “about 200 nm”. Claim 53 recites the limitation “about 1 µm.” Claim 54 recites the limitation “about 200 nm”.
The term "about" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In each claim, the term “about” defines a target (150 nm, 200 nm, 1 µm, or 1.5 µm) and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary.
For example, it is unclear which of 1 nm, 10 nm, 25 nm, 50 nm, 75 nm, 100 nm, 125 nm, 130 nm, 135 nm, 140 nm, 145 nm, 148 nm, 149 nm, 151 nm, 153 nm, 155 nm, 160 nm, 170 nm, 180 nm, 190 nm, 200 nm, 225 nm, 250 nm, 275 nm, 300 nm, 350 nm, 400 nm, or 500 nm are “about 150 nm” and which are “too far” from 150 nm.
Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitations is subjective, rather than objective, and the claims are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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.
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2015/0061158 A1 (“Pharand”).
Pharand teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
382
769
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pharand teaches:
35. A structure, comprising:
a first substrate (e.g. 114) with a first electrical contact (e.g. 118a and/or 118b);
a second substrate (e.g. 102) with a second electrical contact (e.g. 104a and/or 104b) above the first electrical contact on the first substrate (they are above in the orientation that is shown in e.g. Fig. 7),
wherein an upper surface of the first electrical contact on the first substrate is spaced apart from a lower surface of the second electrical contact on the second substrate by a gap (see Fig. 7); and
a layer of selective metal (e.g. 110 and/or 112) in the gap, the layer of selective metal filling the gap (see Fig. 7) and providing a seamless interconnection between the first electrical contact on the first substrate and the second electrical contact on the second substrate (110 and 112 each comprise a single material having no seam therein; this is the same as the “conductive material” or “selective metal” – see e.g. Applicant’s Fig. 1B).
36. A structure, comprising:
a first substrate (e.g. 114) with at least one electrical contact (e.g. 118a and/or 118b);
a second substrate (e.g. 102) with at least one electrical contact (e.g. 104a and/or 104b) above the first substrate (they are above in the orientation that is shown in e.g. Fig. 7); and
a seamless metal layer (e.g. 110 and/or 112) connecting an upper surface of the at least one electrical contact on the first substrate and a lower surface of the at least one electrical contact on the second substrate (see e.g. Fig. 7),
wherein the seamless metal layer is substantially absent from substrate surfaces other than the at least one electrical contact on the first substrate and the at least one electrical contact on the second substrate (see e.g. Fig. 7).
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 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.
Claim(s) 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharand in view of US 2013/0127024 A1 (“Lin”).
Pharand teaches claim 35, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach:
41. The structure of claim 35, wherein the first electrical contact comprises about 150 nm of Copper and about 15 nm of Chromium; or
42. The structure of claim 35, wherein the second electrical contact comprises about 1.5 µm of Copper and 15 nm of Titanium.
Lin teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Pharand
41. The structure of claim 35, wherein the first electrical contact comprises about 150 nm of Copper and about 15 nm of Chromium (see e.g. para 340 and 369, wherein the bump may be formed on an electrical contact comprising an adhesion/barrier layer, which may comprise e.g. 100-1000 nm of copper and 20-800 nm of chromium); and
42. The structure of claim 35, wherein the second electrical contact comprises about 1.5 µm of Copper and 15 nm of Titanium (see e.g. para 340 and 369, wherein the bump may be formed on an electrical contact comprising an adhesion/barrier layer, which may comprise e.g. 0.1-10 micrometers of copper and 20-800 nm of titanium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Lin to the invention of Pharand. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using well-known materials for pads and underbump metallization barrier/adhesion layers (see e.g. para 340, 369).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharand in view of US 2004/0211060 A1 (“Suga”) and/or US 2015/0325523 A1 (“Leobandung”).
Pharand teaches claim 35, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach:
43. The structure of claim 35, wherein the gap between the upper surface of the first electrical contact and the lower surface of the second electrical contact comprises about 200 nm.
Suga and/or Leobandung teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Pharand
43. The structure of claim 35, wherein the gap between the upper surface of the first electrical contact and the lower surface of the second electrical contact comprises about 200 nm (see e.g. Suga, para 39, wherein the bump may have a diameter of about 130 nm and a height of about 100 nm; see e.g. Leobandung, para 30, wherein the solder bump may have a thickness from 100 nm to 10,000 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Suga and/or Leobandung to the invention of Pharand. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of providing a solder layer of an appropriate size to allow a chip to be connected to another object (see e.g. Suga, para 39, wherein the bump may have a diameter of about 130 nm and a height of about 100 nm; see e.g. Leobandung, para 30, wherein the solder bump may have a thickness from 100 nm to 10,000 nm).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed size is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. It has been found that mere changes in the size of an object, lacking any convincing proof of criticality or unobviousness thereof, is not sufficient for patentability. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04; in re Rose, F.3d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); in re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See e.g. MPEP 716.02(b); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 44, 49, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharand in view of US 2012/0091577 A1 (“Hwang”).
Pharand teaches claims 35-36, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach:
44. The structure of claim 35, wherein the selective metal comprises Cobalt (Co), Molybdenum (Mo), Ruthenium (Ru), or Tungsten (W);
49. The structure of claim 36, wherein the at least one electrical contact on the first substrate and the at least one electrical contact on the second substrate comprise Copper; or
50. The structure of claim 36, wherein the seamless metal layer comprises Cobalt (Co), Molybdenum (Mo), Ruthenium (Ru), or Tungsten (W).
Hwang teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Pharand
44. The structure of claim 35, wherein the selective metal comprises Cobalt (Co), Molybdenum (Mo), Ruthenium (Ru), or Tungsten (W) (see Co, e.g. para 20, 24);
49. The structure of claim 36, wherein the at least one electrical contact on the first substrate and the at least one electrical contact on the second substrate comprise Copper (see e.g. para 12); and
50. The structure of claim 36, wherein the seamless metal layer comprises Cobalt (Co), Molybdenum (Mo), Ruthenium (Ru), or Tungsten (W) (see Co, e.g. para 20, 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Hwang to the invention of Pharand. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using well-known materials for pads and interconnections (para 12) and to diffuse Co in bumps to suppress intermetallic compounds (see e.g. para 20).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 51, 52, 55, 56, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharand in view of US 2016/0133601 A1 (“Ko”).
Pharand teaches claim 35, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach:
51. The structure of claim 35, wherein the first substrate comprises a first integrated circuit (IC) chip, the second substrate comprises a second integrated circuit (IC) chip stacked above the first IC chip, and the first electrical contact of the first IC chip is vertically aligned with the second electrical contact of the second IC chip;
52. The structure of claim 51, wherein the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact comprise copper;
55. The structure of claim 51, wherein the layer of selective metal fills the gap between the upper surface of the first electrical contact and the lower surface of the second electrical contact to provide a seamless interconnection between the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact;
56. The structure of claim 51, wherein the layer of selective metal is substantially absent from silicon-based surfaces of the first integrated circuit chip and the second integrated circuit chip other than the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact; or
57. The structure of claim 56, wherein the selective metal comprises cobalt and the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact comprise copper.
Ko teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Pharand
51. The structure of claim 35, wherein the first substrate comprises a first integrated circuit (IC) chip, the second substrate comprises a second integrated circuit (IC) chip stacked above the first IC chip, and the first electrical contact of the first IC chip is vertically aligned with the second electrical contact of the second IC chip (see 10 and 20, which are both IC chips, see e.g. para 18-19);
52. The structure of claim 51, wherein the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact comprise copper (the pads may comprise copper or other well-known materials, see e.g. para 18);
55. The structure of claim 51, wherein the layer of selective metal fills the gap between the upper surface of the first electrical contact and the lower surface of the second electrical contact to provide a seamless interconnection between the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact (see e.g. Pharand, Fig. 7; see e.g. Ko, Fig. 1B);
56. The structure of claim 51, wherein the layer of selective metal is substantially absent from silicon-based surfaces of the first integrated circuit chip and the second integrated circuit chip other than the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact (see e.g. Pharand, Fig. 7; see e.g. Ko, Fig. 1B); and
57. The structure of claim 56, wherein the selective metal comprises cobalt and the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact comprise copper (the pads may comprise copper or other well-known materials, see e.g. para 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Ko to the invention of Pharand. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using well-known materials for the bond pads (see e.g. para 18) and forming a chip-stack package using 3D stacking to reduce the size of devices (see e.g. para 2-3, 12-14, etc.).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharand in view of US 2016/0133601 A1 (“Ko”), further in view of US 2004/0211060 A1 (“Suga”) and/or US 2015/0325523 A1 (“Leobandung”).
Pharand and Ko teach and/or suggest as obvious claim 51, as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach:
53. The structure of claim 51, wherein the gap between the upper surface of the first electrical contact and the lower surface of the second electrical contact is less than about 1 µm; or
54. The structure of claim 53, wherein the gap is about 200 nm.
Suga and/or Leobandung teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Pharand and Ko:
53. The structure of claim 51, wherein the gap between the upper surface of the first electrical contact and the lower surface of the second electrical contact is less than about 1 µm (see e.g. Suga, para 39, wherein the bump may have a diameter of about 130 nm and a height of about 100 nm; see e.g. Leobandung, para 30, wherein the solder bump may have a thickness from 100 nm to 10,000 nm); and
54. The structure of claim 53, wherein the gap is about 200 nm (see e.g. Suga, para 39, wherein the bump may have a diameter of about 130 nm and a height of about 100 nm; see e.g. Leobandung, para 30, wherein the solder bump may have a thickness from 100 nm to 10,000 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Suga and/or Leobandung to the invention of Pharand and Ko. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of providing a solder layer of an appropriate size to allow a chip to be connected to another object (see e.g. Suga, para 39, wherein the bump may have a diameter of about 130 nm and a height of about 100 nm; see e.g. Leobandung, para 30, wherein the solder bump may have a thickness from 100 nm to 10,000 nm).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed size is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. It has been found that mere changes in the size of an object, lacking any convincing proof of criticality or unobviousness thereof, is not sufficient for patentability. See e.g. MPEP 2144.04; in re Rose, F.3d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); in re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See e.g. MPEP 716.02(b); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
US 2015/0332983 A1 (“Honda”) teaches a single-layer solder 30 between a chip and a substrate (see e.g. cover figure).
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights