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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as being anticipated by Passlack et al (“A Flexible Chip-Film Patch and a Flexible Strain Gauge Sensor Suitable for a Hybrid System-in-foil Integration”, hereafter, Passlack).
As per claim 1, Passlack teaches the following:
“A structure comprising: a device substrate comprising at least one pair of spaced apart metal wires extending entirely through the device substrate;”, section 2A on page 3 left column; fig 3 step 4;
“… and a carrier substrate attached to the device substrate at a hybrid bonding interface,”, the 150mm silicon substrate at section 2A on page 2, right column; fig 3 step 1;
“… wherein the carrier substrate comprises a strain gauge sensor located at the hybrid bonding interface,”, the strain gauge is referred to as ASIC at section 2A right column para 1; is referred to as chip in fig 3 step 2;
“…wherein the strain gauge sensor is electrically connected to the at least one pair of spaced apart metal wires at the hybrid bonding interface.”, at section 2A, right column, para 3; fig 3 step 4.
As per claim 2, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 1, wherein the strain gauge sensor comprises at least one metal foil embedded in a flexible dielectric region.”, at section 2B, para 1; fig 4a.
As per claim 3, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 2, wherein the strain gauge sensor further comprises at least one pair of spaced apart sensor contact pads,”, at section 2B, para 1; fig 4a;
“… each sensor contact pad of the at least one pair of spaced apart sensor contact pads is electrically connected to one metal wire of the at least one pair of spaced apart metal wires at the hybrid bonding interface.”, at section 2A on page 3 left column; fig 3 step 4.
As per claim 4, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 2, wherein the at least one metal foil is composed of an electrically conductive line having a meandering pattern.”, at fig 4a.
As per claim 5, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 2, wherein the flexible dielectric region comprises a first flexible dielectric layer located beneath the at least one metal foil and a second flexible dielectric layer located on top of, and laterally adjacent to the at least one metal foil.”, at section 2A, para 1; section 2B, para 1; fig 3; fig 4b.
As per claim 8, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 1, wherein the strain gauge sensor is configured to measure strain at the hybrid bonding interface.”, at section 1, para 1-3.
As per claim 9, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 1, wherein the strain gauge sensor comprises a plurality of electrically connected metal foils,”, at fig 4a and 4c;
“… wherein each metal foil is embedded in a flexible dielectric region and is composed of an electrically conductive line having a meandering pattern.”, at fig 4a.
As per claim 10, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 9, wherein the plurality of electrically connected metal foils are arranged in a crossed formation.”, at fig 4a and 4c.
As per claim 11, Passlack teaches the following:
“A structure comprising: a device substrate comprising a plurality of spaced apart metal wires extending entirely through the device substrate;”, at section 2A, right column, para 3; fig 3 step 4;
“… and a carrier substrate attached to the device substrate at a hybrid bonding interface,”, the 150mm silicon substrate at section 2A on page 2, right column; fig 3 step 1;
“… wherein the carrier substrate comprises a strain gauge sensor located at the hybrid bonding interface,”, at section 2A on page 2, right column; fig 3 step 2;
“… wherein the strain gauge sensor comprises a plurality of electrically connected metal foils,”, at fig 4a and 4c;
“… wherein each metal foil is embedded in a flexible dielectric region…”, at section 2B, para 1; fig 4a;
“… and is electrically connected to the plurality of spaced apart metal wires.”, section 2A on page 3 left column; fig 3 step 4.
As per claim 12, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 11, wherein the strain gauge sensor further comprises a pair of spaced apart sensor contact pads contacting each metal foil of the plurality of electrically connected metal foils.” at section 2B, para 1; fig 4a.
As per claim 13, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 12, wherein each sensor contact pad of the pair of spaced apart sensor contact pads is electrically connected to a metal wire of the plurality of spaced apart metal wires at the hybrid bonding interface.”, at section 2A right column, para 3; fig 3 step 4.
As per claim 14, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 11, wherein each metal foil of the plurality of electrically connected metal foils is composed of an electrically conductive line having a meandering pattern.”, fig 4a and 4c.
As per claim 15, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 11, wherein the plurality of electrically connected metal foils are arranged in a crossed formation.”, fig 4a and 4c.
As per claim 18, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 11, wherein the flexible dielectric region comprises a first flexible dielectric layer located beneath each metal foil of the plurality of electrically connected metal foils and a second flexible dielectric layer located on top of, and laterally adjacent to each of the metal foils of the plurality of electrically connected metal foils.” at section 2A, para 1; section 2B, para 1; fig 3; fig 4b.
As per claim 19, Passlack teaches the following:
“The structure of Claim 11, wherein the strain gauge sensor is configured to measure strain at the hybrid bonding interface.” at section 1, para 1-3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passlack as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Theil et al (US 20230197655 A1, hereafter Theil).
As per claims 6 and 16, Passlack does not teach metal-to-metal bond in the hybrid bonding interface.
However, Theil teaches:
“The structure of Claim 1, wherein the hybrid bonding interface comprises a combination of a dielectric to-dielectric bond (layers 100 and 110 in fig 1D and 1E) and a metal-to-metal bond (layers 102 and 112 in fig 1D and 1E).”, at para [0136].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of filing to modify Passlack with metal and dielectric bonds in order to create a stronger bond between substrates.
As per claims 7 and 17, Passlack does not teach metal-to-metal bond in the hybrid bonding interface.
Theil teaches the following:
“… wherein the device substrate further comprises a first metal line (first contact pad 102) and the carrier substrate further comprises a second metal line (second contact pad 112), wherein the second metal line is in contact with, and electrically connected to, the first metal line at the hybrid bonding interface.”, at para [0136]; fig 1D and 1E.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of filing to modify Passlack with metal and dielectric bonds in order to create a stronger bond between substrates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tessalie A. Caze-Cortes whose telephone number is (571)270-3235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am to 4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/TESSALIE A. CAZE-CORTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights