DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed 9/6/2024.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 first plurality of bonding features being at least partially laterally offset from the corresponding one of the second plurality of bonding features (claims 7, 15, and 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “from with” appears to be improper. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadaka (US 2013/0020704) in view of Hong et al. (US 9,431,341).
Pertaining to claim 1, Sadaka shows, with reference to FIG. 4A-B, a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
providing a first semiconductor device (500) having a first through-silicon via (TSV) (para. [0090], lines 4-6 “vertically extending conductive vias”), a first pad (506), and a first plurality of bonding features (542) projecting away from the first pad;
disposing a second semiconductor device (440), having a second TSV (para. [0075], lines 7-9 “vertically extending conductive vias”), a second pad (406), and a second plurality of bonding features (442) projecting away from the second pad, over the first semiconductor device such that the first pad faces the second pad (FIG. 4A); and
applying pressure to one or both of the first semiconductor device and the second semiconductor device to form a metal-to-metal bond between each of the first plurality of bonding features and a corresponding one of the second plurality of bonding features (para. [0107], lines 5-8; FIG. 4B).
Although Sadaka fails to explicitly show that the pads are electrically coupled to the TSVs, such a feature is known in the prior art. See, for example, Hong et al. (US 9,431,341), which shows pad 150 electrically coupled to TSV 120 (FIG. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the pads of Sadaka to be coupled to the respective TSVs, with the motivation that this creates a feedthrough structure, providing a conductive path from an external source to the subsequently bonded semiconductor structure, thereby providing power or a signal to the subsequently bonded semiconductor structure.
Pertaining to claim 2, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is said to be based upon a particular variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1515, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pertaining to claim 3, Sadaka shows the pads and the bonding features each comprise copper (para. [0081], lines 1-6).
Pertaining to claim 4, Sadaka shows the first and second pluralities of bonding features comprise corresponding first and second pluralities of pillars (formed in apertures 422 and extend in a vertical direction).
Pertaining to claim 5, Sadaka shows bonding the first semiconductor device to the second semiconductor device comprises at least partially deforming end regions of the first plurality of bonding features and of the second plurality of bonding features (para. [0107], lines 5-8; para. [0007], lines 14-15).
Pertaining to claim 6, Sadaka shows that during bonding each of the first plurality of bonding features is substantially vertically aligned with the corresponding one of the second plurality of bonding features (FIG. 4A-B).
Pertaining to claim 7, it is understood that alignment tolerances are expected to have small deviations, even if at the angstrom level. Any deviation in alignment tolerance, however small, results in the bonding features being offset.
Pertaining to claim 8, considering the dielectric material 502 and additional dielectric material 512 to be the first dielectric material (and considering the dielectric material 402 and additional dielectric material 412 to be the second dielectric material), Sadaka shows the first semiconductor device further comprises a first continuous region of a first dielectric material underlying the first pad, overlying the first pad, and at least partially surrounding the first plurality of bonding features, and wherein the second semiconductor device further comprises a second continuous region of a second dielectric material underlying the second pad, overlying the second pad, and at least partially surrounding the second plurality of bonding features (FIG. 4A).
Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 but further includes limitations of forming a damascene base conductor directly coupled to the TSV and forming a damascene conductive pad directly coupled to the damascene base conductor and separated from a semiconductor material of the semiconductor device by a first region of a dielectric material surrounding the base conductor for each of the semiconductor structures. However, Hong teaches the bond pad 150 having a damascene conductive pad directly coupled to a damascene base conductor and separated from the semiconductor material 100 of the semiconductor device by a first region of a dielectric material 146 surrounding the base conductor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the bond pad shape of Sadaka for the dual damascene shape taught by Hong, as the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Furthermore, the court has held changes in shape to be prima facie obvious . In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As shown in FIG. 4A-B of Sadaka, the dielectric material separates the bonding features from one another.
As it pertains to claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, see the rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, above.
The limitations of claim 16 are found in claims 1 and 9. Reference is made to the rejections of those claims above.
As it pertains to claims 17, 18, 19, and 20, see the rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights