DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are examined on merits herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0054 and 0058 of the published application US 2024/0389478 state that titanium nitride TiN is a metal, which is incorrect.
Paragraph 0062 of the published application recites an equation: “[00001]” in formula (1) without explanation of what the number in the bracket means.
Appropriate corrections/clarifications are required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 10 recites that an aspect ratio for a bump is two, which is not supported by the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 3-4 of Claim 1 recite: “the tapered protrusion including a base material of a substrate and of which an area of a cross section”. For a better clarity, Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “the tapered protrusion including a base material of a substrate, where an area of a cross section of the protrusion”.
Lines 11-12 of Claim 11 have a similar recitation, which is also objected and advised to be corrected in a way similar to lines 3-4 of Claim 1, in order to avoid a potential rejection for a lack of antecedent basis.
Line 3 of Claim 5 recites: “the conductive film includes metal”. Examiner suggests changing the recitation by using a language used in Claim 1 (on which Claim 5 depends), e.g.: “the tapered conductive film includes a metal”. Line 16 of Claim 11 has a similar issue and an appropriate correction is required.
Lines 3-4 of Claim 11 recite: “a process of producing a second substrate that covers the circuit element”. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to: “a process of producing a second substrate that would cover the circuit element” – for the obvious reason – the covering takes place only after two substrates are connected to each other.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
In re Claim 2: Claim 2 recites: “a first substrate that includes a circuit element; and a second substrate that is laminated on the first substrate and covers the circuit element”. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “the substrate”, which makes Claim 2 unclear since leads to a question: Does a structure of Claim 2 includes the substrate (of Claim 1) together with first and second substrates?
Due to a negative answer to the question, Claim 2 shall be clarified with respect to “the substrate”.
For this Office Action, to clarify the issue, the above-cited recitation of Claim 2 was interpreted as: “a first substrate that includes a circuit element; and a second substrate that is laminated on the first substrate and covers the circuit element, where the substrate is one of the first substrate or the second substrate”.
In re Claim 2: Lines 6-7 of Claim 2 recite: “the area of the cross section”, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for a lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
For this Office Action, the recitation was interpreted as: “an area of a cross section”.
In re Claim 4: Claim 4 recites: “the conductive film includes a plurality of laminated metal films”. The recitation is unclear, since a plurality of laminated “metal films” of the current application include films 45a and 45b, one of which is a metal – indium, while another is titanium nitride, not metal.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the above-cited limitation of Claim 4 was interpreted as: “the conductive film includes a laminate of electrically conductive metal-containing films”.
In re Claims 5 and 7-9: Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 2.
In re Claim 10: Claim 10 recites: “an aspect ratio of the bump is equal to or more than two”. The recitation is unclear since conflicts with the specification of the application, teaching (paragraph 0073 of the published application) that the aspect ratio is 2.5,
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022], inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the limitation of Claim 10 was interpreted in accordance with the specification of the application as: “an aspect ratio of the bump is 2.5”.
In re Claim 11: Lines 8-9 of Claim 11 recite: “a process of forming a bump on the substrate”. The recitation is unclear, since earlier Claim 11 does not recite: “a substrate”.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of interpreted as: “a process of forming a bump on the first substrate or on the second substrate”.
In view of the above interpretation, lines 11-12 of Claim 11 citing: “a base material of the substrate”, for this Office Action, were interpreted: “a base material of a corresponding substrate”.
In re Claim 15: Claim 15 recites” “in the process of bonding the bump to the first substrate”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 15 depends on Claim 11 which recites: “the bump is bonding to another one of the first substrate and the second substrate”.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of Claim 15 was interpreted as: “in the process of bonding the bump to the another one of the first substrate and the second substrate”.
In re Claim 16: Claim 16 recites: “the bump is bonded to the first substrate”. The recitation lacks antecedent bases, since Claim 16 depends on Claim 11 that does not teach that the bump is bonded to the first substrate, but teaches that “the bump is bonded to another one of the first substrate and the second substrate”.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of Claim 16 was interpreted as: “the bump is bonded to another one of the first substrate and the second substrate”.
In re Claims 12-14: Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 11.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihara et al. (US 6,555,901).
In re Claim 1, Yoshihara teaches an electronic device comprising (Figs. 1-3):
a bump that includes a tapered protrusion 23 (column 4 lines 65-66) and a tapered conductive film 24/25/26/27/28 (column 5 lines 1-10 – see details in Figs. 6-9),
the tapered protrusion 23 including a base material of a substrate 22 (column 4 lines 63-65) and of which an area of a cross section that intersects with a normal direction of the substrate 22 is gradually reduced toward a front end (as is shown in Figs. 6-9; in Figs. 1-3 – the front end is a bottom end),
the tapered conductive film 24/25/26/27/28 being a part of the bump that covers a surface of the protrusion 23 and reflects a shape of the protrusion.
In re Claim 2, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1, further comprising (Figs. 1-3):
a first substrate 1 that includes a circuit element (a transistor) comprised elements 5 and 6 (column 3 lines 50-56); and
a second substrate 22 (being a cap, column 4 line 63) that is laminated on the first substrate 1 and covers the circuit element, wherein
one of the first substrate 1 and the second substrate 22 includes the bump (comprised elements 23/24/25/26/27/28),
the tapered protrusion 23 of the bump is configured such that the area of the cross section that intersects with a lamination direction of the first substrate 1 and the second substrate 22 is gradually reduced toward a front end (as shown for Claim 1), and
the bump 23-28 is bonded to another one of the first substrate and the second substrate – it is bonded to the first substrate 1 (column 5 lines 19-21).
In re Claim 3, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1, wherein (Figs. 1-3) the base material of 22 further includes a recess provided around the protrusion 23 (the recess is filled with conductive layers 24-28 – see Figs. 6-9 for details).
In re Claim 4, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1, wherein (Figs. 1-3) the conductive film includes a plurality of laminated metal films 24-28 (e.g., as interpreted, column 5 lines 1-10).
In re Claim 7, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2, wherein (Figs. 1-3) the protrusion 23 is formed in an annular shape (column 4 lines 53-56) so as to surround a periphery of the circuit element.
In re Claim 8, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2, wherein (Figs. 1-3) the conductive film 24-28 covers an entire surface of the second substrate 22 that faces the first substrate 1.
In re Claim 9, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2, wherein (Figs. 1-3) a front end of the bump – its portion 23 - protrudes from a surface of the base material of the second substrate 22.
In re Claim 11, Yoshihara teaches a method for manufacturing an electronic device, the method comprising:
a process (Figs. 10-12, column 6 lines 47-67 and column 7 lines 1-3) of producing a first substrate – including 35 - that includes a circuit element – comprising a gate electrode 6;
a process (Figs. 4-9, column 5 lines 55-67 and column 6 lines 1-46) of producing a second substrate 31 that covers (e.g., that “would cover”) the circuit element; and
a process (Fig. 13, column 7 lines 43-53) of laminating the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein
one of the process of producing the first substrate and the process of producing the second substrate includes a process of forming a bump on the substrate – as shown in Figs. 4-9, the process of forming the bump includes
a process of forming a tapered protrusion 23 that includes a base material of the substrate 31 and of which an area of a cross section that intersects with a lamination direction of the first substrate and the second substrate is gradually reduced toward a front end and
a process of forming a tapered conductive film 24-28 that covers a surface of the protrusion 23 and reflects a shape of the protrusion 23, and
in the process of laminating the first substrate and the second substrate, the bump 23-28 is bonded – through created eutectic layer 29 (column 5 lines 32-35) - to another one of the first substrate and the second substrate (as Fig. 13 shows).
In re Claim 12, Yoshihara teaches the manufacturing method according to Claim 11 as cited above, wherein (Figs. 4-6, column 6 lines 5-6) the protrusion 23 is formed by etching a region that corresponds to an outer periphery of the protrusion of the base material.
In re Claim 14, Yoshihara teaches the manufacturing method according to Claim 11 as cited above, wherein (Figs 4-6 and 3, column 4 lines 65-67) the protrusion is formed in an annular shape so as to surround a periphery of the circuit element.
In re Claim 15, Yoshihara teaches the manufacturing method according to Claim 11 as cited above, wherein (Fig. 13, column 7 lines 61-67 and column 8 lines 1-11) in the process of bonding the bump to the first substrate, the conductive film 24-28 is deformed – as part of the film 24-28 creates layer 29 with polysilicon 21 of the first substrate - by – also (in addition to a relatively high temperature) - applying a pressing force – of 0.8 kg/mm2 - to the bump.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara in view of Nah et al. (US 2020/0152540).
In re Claim 5, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 2 as cited above, including the conductive film, wherein the conductive film includes metal – such as Ti for layer 27 (column 5 lines 1-10) that exhibits superconductivity (inherently, as is known in the art, see, for example, Zhang et al. NPL).
Yoshihara does not teach that the circuit element includes a qubit element – he teaches a transistor being a sensor.
Nah teaches a structure (Fig. 16) comprised a cubit 1608 coupled to substrate 1602 (paragraph 0110).
Yoshihara and Nah teach analogous arts directed to a substrate to which a circuit element is coupled, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yoshihara device in view of the Nah teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Nah created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yoshihara device by substituting its circuit element with a qubit device of Nah, wherein it is desirable creating a structure protecting a qubit device from inaccurate handing.
In re Claims 6 and 13, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 and the process according to Claim 11 as cited above, but does not teach that the protrusion has a conical shape or a pyramid.
Nah teaches (Fig. 3) a protrusion 310 created in a shape of a pyramid (paragraphs 0073, 0018).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yoshihara device by substituting its protrusion having a trapezoidal shape with the protrusion having a shape of a pyramid, if such shape is preferred for the manufacturer. Note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara in view of Nakai et al. (US 2011/0156216).
In re Claim 10, Yoshihara teaches the electronic device according to Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that an aspect ratio of the bump is equal to or more than two (e.g., “two” – in accordance with the claim interpretation).
Nakai teaches (paragraph 0060) a bump with an aspect ratio being 2.
Yoshihara and Nakai teach analogous arts directed to a bump, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yoshihara device in view of the Nakai teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Nakai created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yoshihara device by creating its bump with an aspect ratio of 2 (per Nakai), if such aspect ratio is desirable for the manufacturer. Note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara in view of Zimmermann et al. (US 2023/0202920).
In re Claim 16, Yoshihara teaches the manufacturing method according to Claim 11 as cited above, including the bump bonded to the first substrate (e.g., in accordance with the claim interpretation), but does not teach that the bump is bonded to the first substrate by room-temperature bonding between conductive films of which surfaces are activated by irradiation of an ion beam: Yoshihara teaches (Fig. 3) that the bump (comprising conductive films 23-28) is bonded to the silicon pad 21 (column 4 line 53 and column 5 lines 20-25) of the first substrate at a relatively high temperature of 363 oC.
Zimmermann refers (paragraph 0011) to multiple prior arts teaching room-temperature bonding between silicon and lithium niobate bonding when to be bonded surfaces are activation by argon beam.
Yoshihara and Zimmermann teach analogous arts directed to bump bonding, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Yoshihara method in view of the Zimmermann teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Zimmermann referred to a successful practice used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Yoshihara bump by either adding at its end used for bonding a layer of lithium niobate or by substituting Au layer 28 with LiNb and to bond the band to the first substrate by activating to be bonded surfaces by irradiation of an argon beam at a room temperature, either when any circuit element used in the manufacturing structure shall be prevented from heat to a temperature of 360 oC and/or when the manufacturer prefers using a room-temperature bonding for other reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 08/17/26
Prosecution Insights