UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OEEICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Ofi'ir.e
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www usplo gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`12/497,653
`
`07/04/2009
`
`Glenn J. Leedy
`
`0907043DSCMP.US
`
`6945
`
`08/27/2014
`
`7€90
`30232
`mm ms 11>
`MICHAEL J. URE
`10518 PHIL PLACE
`CUPERTINO, CA 95014
`
`JOY, IEREMYJ
`
`2896
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`08/27/2014
`
`D IVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`MICRON ET AL. EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 1 of 6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/497,653
`Art Unit: 2896
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2014 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`(i) In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the rejection is unjustifiably
`
`speculative, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, just because the
`
`applicant alleges that the flexibility of Leedy's circuit layers are related to conformance,
`
`does not mean that modifying Bertin with the low stress dielectric of Leedy would not be
`
`desired or lead to an improved device. The applicant defines that the flexibility of their
`
`device is based on a thin wafer and the inclusion of a low stress dielectric layer.
`
`Therefore including a low stress dielectric layer within the device as taught by Bertin
`
`would lead to a flexible device. Furthermore, Leedy specifically states that the inclusion
`
`of low stress dielectrics in devices provide advantages to lower the cost and complexity
`
`of circuit fabrication and will enhance the performance of the circuit operation. Lastly,
`
`rather than using the oxidation process of forming the insulation layers which could
`
`perhaps damage the device through the thermal processes, forming the dielectric as
`
`taught by Leedy is shown to be an alternative method that would not require the thermal
`
`process and would lead to a device that will have enhanced performance characteristics
`
`as taught.
`
`(ii) In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of
`
`obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that
`
`any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon
`
`MICRON ET AL. EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 2 of 6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/497,653
`Art Unit: 2896
`
`Page 3
`
`hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
`
`within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does
`
`not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a
`
`reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA
`
`1971). In particular, as shown the rejection does most definitely identify motivation to
`
`combine the references within the references themselves (see above). Furthermore, it is
`
`common knowledge that insulation layers and more specifically silicon oxide layers
`
`maybe be formed from other methods than oxidation. Leedy teaches and shows a valid
`
`alternative as well as clearly lays out benefits for using said low stress silicon oxide
`
`layer in a similar device.
`
`(iii) In regards to the applicant’s arguments that Bertin does not teach forming
`
`dielectric layer through oxidation the examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular,
`
`Berfin clearly teaches that the dielectric layers are formed by oxidation (Col. 4, lines 30-
`
`40) and the applicant even admitted as such in the arguments filed on 04/05/2013 in
`
`related application 12/497,652 (Page 28). In said arguments, the applicant admitted that
`
`the oxide is formed of thermally grown oxide which is known to be high stress and 5 to
`
`10 times the level of stress than the oxides taught in the applicant’s specification.
`
`Therefore, the examiner’s rational that said low stress dielectrics as taught by Leedy
`
`would lead to a dielectric with much lower stress than the dielectric as taught by Bertin
`
`is accurate. And the examiner maintains that one would want a device with dielectrics of
`
`much lower stress for, at the very least, the reasons mentioned above.
`
`MICRON ET AL. EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 3 of 6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/497,653
`Art Unit: 2896
`
`(iv) In regards to the applicant’s question on why a lower stress dielectric would
`
`be desirable in Bertin, the examiner responds by asking: why would one of ordinary skill
`
`and creativity in the art not look to known and available art to improve the device of
`
`Bertin? Since Leedy provided the motivation to include low stress dielectric as
`
`mentioned above why would one not look to said teachings of Leedy and modify the
`
`device of Bertin to improve it’?
`
`(v) In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the CTE matching of Leedy is not
`
`required in Bertin, the examiner acknowledges that while this may be true it does not
`
`mean that it wouldn’t be desirable. Leedy teaches that the CTE matching would help to
`
`minimize the extrinsic overall stress of the circuit layers. Since, Bertin teaches forming
`
`circuit layers why would one having ordinary skill in the art not modify Bertin with the
`
`teachings of Leedy to help minimize stress regardless of whether Bertin teaches free-
`
`standing circuit membranes.
`
`(vi) In regards to the applicants arguments that using the technique of Leedy
`
`rather than Bertin would not lower the cost or enhance the performance, the examiner
`
`respectfully disagrees. Leedy specifically states that using layers that are formed by the
`
`methods as taught in interconnect structures provide those advantages and that
`
`dielectric layers formed by oxidation lead to strongly compressive films while dielectrics
`
`formed by the method of Leedy have tensile stress that is low and lead to more flexible
`
`MICRON ET AL. EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 4 of 6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/497,653
`Art Unit: 2896
`
`layers that won't fracture. This is clearly more desirable and would enhance
`
`performance and would lead to lower cost and flexibility. These benefits would be
`
`desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art and not just Leedy.
`
`(vii) In regards to the applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious
`
`to combine the teachings of Bertin and Kato as suggested, the examiner respectfully
`
`disagrees. In particular, as stated Bertin already teaches etching said circuit layers to
`
`expose the signal paths but fails to carry out an extra step of polishing surface after
`
`etching. Kato is relied upon to teach the method of polishing and not relied upon to
`
`teach polishing in a certain area such as a backside or frontside since Bertin already
`
`teaches thinning the substrate in the desired area as claimed, but merely is relied upon
`
`to teach that polishing is known and that it would be desirable to carry out as it would
`
`provide a smooth flat surface for bonding. Such a surface is desirable for bonding or
`
`forming additional elements in the art since a surface after rough etching can leave it
`
`uneven and not preferable for subsequent process steps. This is yet another
`
`modification that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to make as it can improve the
`
`quality of subsequent process steps such as deposition and bonding.
`
`MICRON ET AL. EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 5 of 6
`
`

`
`Advisory Action
`Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Application No.
`12/497,653
`Examiner
`JEREMY JOY
`
`App|icant(s)
`LEEDY, GLENN J.
`A“ Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to rue) Status
`2896
`No
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`THE REPLY FILED 22 July 2014 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.
`NO NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
`
`1.
`
`The reply was filed after a final rejection. No Notice of Appeal has been filed. To avoid abandonment of this application, applicant must timely file
`one of the following replies: (1) an amendment, affidavit, or other evidence, which places the application in condition for allowance;
`(2) a Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee) in compliance with 37 CFR 41.31; or (3) a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with
`37 CFR 1.114 if this is a utility or plant application. Note that RCEs are not permitted in design applications. The reply must be filed within one of
`the following time periods:
`a) X The period for reply expires gmonths from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`b) E) The period for reply expires on: (1) the mailing date of this Advisory Action; or (2) the date set forth in the final rejection, whichever is later.
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`c) E) A prior Advisory Action was mailed more than 3 months after the mailing date of the final rejection in response to a first after—fina| reply filed
`within 2 months of the mailing date of the final rejection. The current period for reply expires
`months from the mailing date of
`the priorAdvisory Action or SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection, whichever is earlier.
`Examiner Note: If box 1 is checked, check either box (a), (b) or (c). ONLY CHECK BOX (b) WHEN THIS ADVISORY ACTION IS THE
`FIRST RESPONSE TO APPL|CANT‘S FIRST AFTER-FINAL REPLY WHICH WAS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE FINAL
`REJECTION. ONLY CHECK BOX (c) IN THE LIMITED SITUATION SET FORTH UNDER BOX (c). See MPEP 706.07(f).
`Extensions of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate
`extension fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The
`appropriate extension fee under 37 CFR 1.17(a) is calculated from: (1) the expiration date of the shortened statutory period for reply originally
`set in the final Office action; or (2) as set forth in (b) or (c) above, if checked. Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the
`mailing date of the final rejection, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`. A brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37 must be filed within two months of the date of filing the
`2. E) The Notice of Appeal was filed on
`Notice of Appeal (37 CFR 41 .37(a)), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 41 .37(e)), to avoid dismissal of the appeal. Since a Notice of
`Appeal has been filed, any reply must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 41 .37(a).
`AMENDMENTS
`
`3. E) The proposed amendments filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief. will n_ot be entered because
`a) El They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
`b) E) They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below);
`c) [I They are not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for
`appeal; and/or
`d) El They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
`NOTE: j. (See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41 .33( )).
`4. D The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).
`5. El App|icant’s reply has overcome the following rejection(s):
`6. El Newly proposed or amended c|aim(s) j would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling the non-
`allowable c|aim( ).
`7. El For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): (a) El will not be entered, or (b) E] will be entered. and an explanation of how the
`new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended.
`AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`8. D A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`9. I:I The affidavit or other evidence filed after final action, but before or on the date of filing a Notice of Appeal will n_ot be entered because
`applicant failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier
`presented. See 37 CFR 1.116( ).
`10. CI The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing the Notice of Appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief. will n_o’L be entered
`because the affidavit or other evidence failed to overcome a_H rejections under appeal and/or appellant fails to provide a showing of good
`and sufficient reasons why it is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41 .33(d)(1).
`1 1. [I The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below or attached.
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/OTHER
`
`12. IZI The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
`See Continuation Sheet.
`
`13. CI Note the attached Information Disclosure Sz‘afemenf(s). (PTO/SB/O8) Paper No( ).
`14. El Other:
`.
`STA"US OF CLAIMS
`
`15. "he status of the c|aim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
`C|aim(s) allowed:
`.
`C|aim(s) objected to:
`C|aim(s) rejected: 1-13, 18-58, 60-63, 69-71, 73, 76-116 and 118-130.
`CIaim(s) withdrawn from consideration:
`
`/JEREMY JOW
`Examifief. AFT Unit 2896
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-303 (Rev. 08-2013)
`
`/CHEUNG LEE/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
`
`Advisory Action Before the Filing 01 an Appeal Brief
`
`Part of Paper No. 20140821
`
`MICRON ET AL. EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 6 of 6