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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuang (US 2004/0175653) in view of Kori (US 2019/0064659), Hatakeyama (US 2017/0003590), Defranco (US 2014/0127625), and Scanlan (US 2016/0322343).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Zuang teaches a method of manufacturing a patterned structure ([0002]), specifically a wafer level packaging scheme ([0002]-[0003]), the method comprising: spin-coating (see [0129]) a photoresist composition onto a wafer comprising a under-bump metallurgy stack; and performing a pre-bake process on the photoresist composition [0130]), wherein the photoresist composition comprises: a surfactant (leveling agent, [0015]; fluorinated surfactants, [0126]); and a base solvent ([0124]; which may be propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA), [0124]). However, while Zuang does teach the inclusion of more than one solvent ([0124]), Zuang does not specifically teach the inclusion of additional solvents for the purposes of boiling point modification or hydrophilicity modification. Zuang does teach that the solvents may include butyrolactone ([0124]).
Kori teaches a composition for forming an organic film ([0133]; analogous to the Page 4 negative photoresist of Zuang). Kori further teaches that, in addition to an organic solvent having a boiling point of lower than 180C (such as the PGMEA of Zuang), the composition may further contain an organic solvent having a boiling point of higher than 180C ([0137]). Kori teaches that "The boiling point of 180° C. or higher prevents the evaporation rate at baking (heating) from becoming excessive, which would otherwise occur if the boiling point is too low. Thus, the boiling point of 180° C. or higher can provide sufficient thermal flowability and is preferable. " ([0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a second solvent in the composition of Zuang (in addition to the PGMEA) which has a boiling point higher than 180C (such as propylene glycol diacetate (PGDA, [0137] of Kori), per the teachings of Kori. Kori teaches that such an addition would prevent the evaporation rate during baking from becoming excessive, thus allowing for sufficient thermal flowability.
Hatakeyama teaches that gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) is highly hydrophilic ([0128]). Furthermore, the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of a solvent (or solvent mixture) is well known in the art to impact said solvent's solubility in its solutes. However, Hatakeyama further teaches that when GBL is used as a high-boiling point solvent, it becomes more concentrated during coating, which can cause hydrophilic solutes to precipitate, resulting in defects ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included GBL in the solvent mixture of Zuang. Per the teachings of Hatakeyama, such an inclusion would allow for the modulation of the hydrophilicity of the solvent mixture, allowing for sufficient solubility of the solvent mixture in the solutes.
Regarding wherein after performing the pre-bake process the photoresist has a height variability of less than 300 angstrom, Zuang notes that the prepared photoresist composition solution can be applied to a substrate by any conventional method used in the photoresist art, including dipping, spraying, whirling and spin coating and when spin coating, for example, the resist solution can be adjusted with respect to the percentage of solids content, in order to provide coating of the desired thickness, given the type of spinning equipment utilized and the amount of time allowed for the spinning process (paragraph [0129]). The resist composition in Examples 1 to 6 had a thickness of 60 micrometers (paragraph [0135]).
Hatakeyama further teaches resist compositions are spin-coated onto a silicon substrate to form a resist film of 90 nm (paragraph [0169]). Examiner notes that the composition in Hatakeyama in Table 1 contains more solvent than the compositions of Zuang.
Zuang and Hatakeyama demonstrate that the solvent amount dictates the final thickness of the photoresist composition as indicated by their working examples. But, Zuang, Hatakeyama and Kori are still silent to an explicit recitation of a height variability of less than 300 angstrom.
Defranco teaches solvents and photoresist for the photolithographic patterning of organic electronic devices (abstract). Particularly, Defranco teaches that in order for a photoresist to be useful, it must form a film of sufficient thickness with low thickness variation (± 10%) across the substrate on which it has been spin coated (paragraph [0060]).
Thus, Hatakeyama and Zuang teach that the amount of solvent contained in a resist composition dictates the final thickness of the photoresist, whereby a larger content of solvent (i.e. lower solids %) leads to a thinner photoresist after baking. Defranco then teaches that a low thickness variation of <10% of the photoresist thickness is required to form a useful photoresist. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the thickness of the photoresist in Zuang to have the thickness of the photoresist in Hatakeyama (60 nm) by adding more solvent in the photoresist composition through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the thick or thin photoresist layers would behave similarly. Then, based on the teaching of Defranco, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have limited the thickness variation of the photoresist to be less than 10% of the thickness (6 nm, or 60 angstrom in this case). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification since photoresists are more useful when a low thickness variation is present across the substrate as suggested by Defranco.
Zuang teaches that the underbumps are used to connect wafer-level packaging schemes that use redistribution, but does not teach the instantly claimed substrate structure. Scanlan teaches semiconductor die packaging [0009] where under bump (128) metallization pads [0068] are used to connect a substrate that comprises a first redistribution structure (124) [0064], a second redistribution structure (134) [0070], a first semiconductor device (surface mount device (70)) between the first redistribution structure and the second redistribution structure [0061, 0009]; and at least one through via (through which traces 54 and pads 58 connect the first and second redistribution structures [0061, 0070, FIG. 3E]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the filing of the instant invention to have used the invention of Zuang to connect semiconductor packages to have connected the particular semiconductor package of Scanlan because Zuang teaches its under bump metallization packaging scheme and Scanlan teaches packages in need of under bump metallization with a reasonable expectation of success in yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Hatakeyama and Kori further teach that the hydrophilicity modifying solvent (GBL) is more hydrophilic than the boiling point modifying solvent (PGDA) (see [0045]- [0046] of applicant's specification).
Regarding claim 6, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Zuang further teaches that the base solvent "typically" comprises from about 30 to about 80% of the photoresist mixture by atomic weight ([0124]), and not the claimed range of greater than or equal to 90%. However, as referenced above, said range is disclosed as a "typical" content. Furthermore, Zuang teaches that, while the photoresist are typically 25 to 135 microns thick, they can range from 1 micron to over 200 micron ([0003]). Zuang further teaches that the film thickness can be adjusted by adjusting the ratio of the content of the solid components to the content of the solvents ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of the base solvent of Zuang to be greater than 80% (such as 90% or greater) of the photoresist mixture by atomic weight. While the mixture of Zuang is disclosed as typically forming a resist of thickness of no more than 25 microns and a solvent content of no more than 80%, Zuang still teaches that the mixture may form a resist with as low a thickness as 1 micron (which could be obtained by increasing the solvent content). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success for this modification as it is implicitly within the limitations of the disclosure of Zuang.
Regarding claim 7, the discussion of Claim 6 is relied upon as above. Neither Zuang nor Hatakeyama teach the specific content of the hydrophilicity modifying solvent (GBL) in the solvent mixture. However, Hatakeyama does teach that when GBL is used as a high-boiling point solvent, it becomes more concentrated during coating, which can cause hydrophobic solutes to precipitate, resulting in defects ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined an optimal or working range for the content of the GBL in the solvent mixture of Zuang modified by Hatakeyama. Specifically, it would have been obvious to determine a maximum content to prevent the precipitation of hydrophobic solutes during coating. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (ССРА 1955).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuang (US 2004/0175653) in view of Kori (US 2019/0064659), Hatakeyama (US 2017/0003590), Defranco (US 2014/0127625), and Scanlan (US 2016/0322343) as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Liu (US 2016/0005595).
Regarding claim 2, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Zuang further teaches that the photoresist mixture further comprises a crosslinker ([0088]), but does not teach that it is a floating cross-linker.
Liu teaches a known photoresist (see [0087]) mixture (BARC layer, [0033]; which is analogous to the negative-working composition of Zuang) comprising a polymer resin ([0033]; analogous to component a of Zuang, see [0021] of Zuang), a catalyst ([0033]; analogous to component d of Zuang, see [0021] of Zuang), and a crosslinking agent ([0033]; analogous to component b of Zuang, see [0021] of Zuang). Liu further teaches that the crosslinking agent may be a floating crosslinker though the inclusion of a fluorine atom ([0084]). The addition of the fluorine atom causes the floating cross-linker to have a high surface energy, resulting in the movement of the floating cross-linker to the top surface of the BARC layer ([0084]). This results in a floating region with a higher concentration of the floating cross-linker than a remainder of the BARC layer ([0085]). In turn, the cross-linking reaction elsewhere within the BARC layer will be reduced, leading to a reduction in all of the subsequent problems caused by excessive crosslinking. In particular, there will be no significant film shrinkage outside of the floating region and there will be no significant cross-linking reaction by-products to outgas outside of the floating region, thereby avoiding the formation of voids. ([0094])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosslinker of Zuang to be a floating crosslinker, through the addition of a fluorine atom, per the teachings of Liu. This would result in the formation of a floating region atop the photoresist of Zuang, leading to a reduction of film shrinkage outside of the floating region and of void formation.
Claim 3 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuang (US 2004/0175653) in view of Kori (US 2019/0064659), Hatakeyama (US 2017/0003590), Defranco (US 2014/0127625), and Scanlan (US 2016/0322343) as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Shirai (US 2018/0254182), hereinafter Shirai, as evidenced by "Metabocard for Ethylmethylacetic acid" by HMDB, hereinafter HMBD.
Regarding claim 3, Zuang further teaches that the base solvent is propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA) ([0124] of Zuang) and Hatakeyama further teaches that the hydrophilicity modifying solvent is gamma butyrolactone (GBL) ([0128] of Hatakeyama). Kori does not specifically teach that the boiling point modifying solvent is methylbutyric acid. However, the list of examples of high boiling point solvents taught by Kori is non limiting ([0137] of Kori), and Kori teaches that the high-boiling-point organic solvent need only be capable of dissolving the polymer ([0137]).
Shirai teaches that it is known that, in the capacity of a photoresist composition solvent, 3-methylbutanoic acid is an art recognized equivalent to propylene glycol diacetate, propylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate, and others taught by Kori ([0094] of Shirai). Furthermore, HMDB teaches that 3-methylbutanoic acid has a relatively high boiling point (177C; Page 5 of HMDB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the high boiling point solvent of Zuang modified by Kori and Hatakeyama (specifically disclosed by Kori) with 3-methylbutanoic acid, per the teachings of Shirai. Shirai establishes this solvent as an art recognized equivalent to those taught by Korai, and it has a relatively high boiling point. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect similar results from this substitution.
Claims 8, 9, 11-14, 21, 22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuang (US 2004/0175653) in view of Kori (US 2019/0064659), Hatakeyama (US 2017/0003590), and Liu et al. (US 2016/0005595).
Regarding claims 8, 11, 21, and 22, Zuang teaches a method of manufacturing a Page 9 patterned structure ([0002]), specifically a wafer level packaging scheme ([0002]-[0003]), the method comprising: forming a dielectric layer on a wafer, wherein the dielectric layer contains vias which expose underlying under-bump pads ([0003]); forming an electroplating seed layer on top of the wafer (which at this point includes the dielectric layer and vias therein) comprising an under-bump metallurgy stack ([0003]); forming a photoresist plating mask (which would inherently expose portions of the underlying UBM stack) on the under-bump metallurgy stack ([0003]) using a spin coating process (see [0129]); electroplating a solder bump within a via the photoresist plating mask ([0003]); and stripping the photoresist ([0003]). Zuang further teaches that forming the photoresist comprises: spin coating a photoresist composition ([0129]); and performing a pre-bake process to cure the photoresist composition ([0130]), wherein the photoresist composition comprises: a surfactant (leveling agent, [0015]; fluorinated surfactants, [0126]); and a base solvent ([0124]; which may be propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA), [0124]). However, while Zuang does teach the inclusion of more than one solvent ([0124]), Zuang does not specifically teach the inclusion of additional solvents for the purposes of boiling point modification or hydrophilicity modification; Nor does Zuang teach the formation of a floating layer. Zuang does teach that the solvents may include butyrolactone ([0124]).
Kori teaches a composition for forming an organic film ([0133]; analogous to the negative photoresist of Zuang). Kori further teaches that, in addition to an organic solvent having a boiling point of lower than 180C (such as the PGMEA of Zuang), the composition may further contain an organic solvent having a boiling point of higher than 180C ([0137]). Kori teaches that "The boiling point of 180° C. or higher prevents the evaporation rate at baking (heating) from becoming excessive, which would otherwise occur if the boiling point is too low. Thus, the boiling point of 180° C. or higher can provide sufficient thermal flowability and is preferable. " ([0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a second solvent in the composition of Zuang (in addition to the PGMEA) which has a boiling point higher than 180C (such as propylene glycol diacetate (PGDA, [0137] of Kori), per the teachings of Kori. Kori teaches that such an addition would prevent the evaporation rate during baking from becoming excessive, thus allowing for sufficient thermal flowability.
Hatakeyama teaches that gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) is highly hydrophilic ([0128]). Furthermore, the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of a solvent (or solvent mixture) is well known in the art to impact said solvent's solubility in its solutes. However, Hatakeyama further teaches that when GBL is used as a high-boiling point solvent, it becomes more concentrated during coating, which can cause hydrophilic solutes to precipitate, resulting in defects ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included GBL in the solvent mixture of Zuang. Per the teachings of Hatakeyama, such an inclusion would allow for the modulation of the hydrophilicity of the solvent mixture, allowing for sufficient solubility of the solvent mixture in the solutes.
Liu teaches a known photoresist (see [0087]) mixture (BARC layer, [0033]; which is analogous to the negative-working composition of Zuang) comprising a polymer resin ([0033]; analogous to component a of Zuang, see [0021] of Zuang), a catalyst ([0033]; analogous to component d of Zuang, see [0021] of Zuang), and a crosslinking agent ([0033]; analogous to component b of Zuang, see [0021] of Zuang). Liu further teaches that the crosslinking agent may be a floating crosslinker though the inclusion of a fluorine atom ([0084]). The addition of the fluorine atom causes the floating cross-linker to have a high surface energy, resulting in the movement of the floating cross-linker to the top surface of the BARC layer ([0084]). This results in a floating region with a higher concentration of the floating cross-linker than a remainder of the BARC layer ([0085]). In turn, the cross-linking reaction elsewhere within the BARC layer will be reduced, leading to a reduction in all of the subsequent problems caused by excessive crosslinking. In particular, there will be no significant film shrinkage outside of the floating region and there will be no significant cross-linking reaction by-products to outgas outside of the floating region, thereby avoiding the formation of voids. ([0094])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crosslinker of Zuang to be a floating crosslinker, through the addition of a fluorine atom, per the teachings of Liu. This would result in the formation of a floating region atop the photoresist of Zuang, leading to a reduction of film shrinkage outside of the floating region and of void formation. Furthermore, per the teachings of Liu this floating region would have a higher concentration of the fluorinated surfactant as the surfactant's inclusion of fluorine results in a high surface energy, leading to the movement of the fluorinated surfactant to the top region of the photoresist which becomes the floating layer.
Regarding the concentration of surfactant being between 1 ppm to 20 ppm, Zuang further discloses the suitable leveling agents include surfactants such as fluorinated surfactants (paragraph [0126]) and specifically states that the leveling agents are typically present in an amount ranging from 0.001% to 1% (paragraph [0128]). Zuang discloses in Table 1 composition of the photoresists (paragraph [0134]). Additionally, Zuang notes that the prepared photoresist composition solution can be applied to a substrate by any conventional method used in the photoresist art, including dipping, spraying, whirling and spin coating and when spin coating, for example, the resist solution can be adjusted with respect to the percentage of solids content, in order to provide coating of the desired thickness, given the type of spinning equipment utilized and the amount of time allowed for the spinning process (paragraph [0129]). The resist composition in Examples 1 to 6 had a thickness of 60 micrometers (paragraph [0135]).
Hatakeyama further teaches in Table 1 a concentration of FC-4430 fluorochemical surfactant at around 0.4 ppm (page 101, paragraph [0167-0169]). The resist compositions of Hatakeyama were spin-coated onto a silicon substrate to form a resist film of 90 nm (paragraph [0169]). Examiner notes that the composition in Hatakeyama in Table 1 contains more solvent than the compositions of Zuang.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the surfactant concentration in Zuang by modifying the solids content in the photoresist composition. The solids content of the photoresist film is shown to be a result-effective variable that affects the final thickness of the dried photoresist film, where higher solid contents have thicker films and lower solid contents yield thinner films as shown by the examples in Zuang and Hatakeyama respectively. Simply modifying the desired thickness of the photoresist by changing the concentration would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a wide range of surfactant concentrations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimal solids content for the desired final thickness of the photoresist through routine experimentation. In doing so, the surfactant concentration would overlap the instantly claimed range of 100 ppm or less as seen by the concentration of surfactant in the photoresist composition of Hatakeyama having a photoresist thickness, and therefore a high solids content. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect a surfactant concentration between 100 ppm to as low as 0.4 ppm as shown by Hatakeyama to perform similar to a photoresist composition with a higher concentration. One of ordinary skill would have determined the working range of solvents for the desired photoresist thickness and arrive at the instantly claimed range of surfactant concentration in the photoresist. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCРА 1955).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, the discussion of Claims 8 and 21 are relied upon as above. The photoresist mixture of Zuang modified by Liu (as Page 12 described above), comprises a floating crosslinker. Liu further teaches that the floating crosslinker has a higher concentration in the floating layer than in the remainder of the photoresist ([0085]).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, the discussion of Claims 8 and 21 are relied upon as above. Hatakeyama and Kori further teach that the hydrophilicity modifying solvent (GBL) is more hydrophilic than the boiling point modifying solvent (PGDA) (see [0045]-[0046] of applicant's specification).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, the discussion of Claims 8 and 21 are relied upon as above. Zuang further teaches that the base solvent "typically" comprises from about 30 to about 80% of the photoresist mixture by atomic weight ([0124]), and not the claimed range of greater than or equal to 90%. However, as referenced above, said range is disclosed as a "typical" content. Furthermore, Zuang teaches that, while the photoresist are typically 25 to 135 microns thick, they can range from 1 micron to over 200 micron ([0003]). Zuang further teaches that the film thickness can be adjusted by adjusting the ratio of the content of the solid components to the content of the solvents ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of the base solvent of Zuang to be greater than 80% (such as 90% or greater) of the photoresist mixture by atomic weight. While the mixture of Zuang is disclosed as typically forming a resist of thickness of no more than 25 microns and a solvent content of no more than 80%, Zuang still teaches that the mixture may form a resist with as low a thickness as 1 micron (which could be obtained by increasing the solvent content). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success for this modification as it is implicitly within the limitations of the disclosure of Zuang.
Regarding claims 14 and 26, the discussion of Claims 8 and 21 are relied upon as above. Neither Zuang nor Hatakeyama teach the specific content of the hydrophilicity modifying solvent (GBL) in the solvent mixture. However, Hatakeyama does teach that that when GBL is used as a high-boiling point solvent, it becomes more concentrated during coating, which can cause hydrophobic solutes to precipitate, resulting in defects ([0128]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined an optimal or working range for the content of the GBL in the solvent mixture of Zuang modified by Hatakeyama. Specifically, it would have been obvious to determine a maximum content to prevent the precipitation of hydrophobic solutes during coating. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (ССРА 1955).
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuang (US 2004/0175653) in view of Kori (US 2019/0064659), Hatakeyama (US 2017/0003590), and Liu et al. (US 2016/0005595) as applied to Claims 8 and 21, further in view of Shirai (US 2018/0254182), as evidenced by "Metabocard for Ethylmethylacetic acid" by HMDB, hereinafter HMBD.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Zuang further teaches that the base solvent is propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA) ([0124] of Zuang) and Hatakeyama further teaches that the hydrophilicity modifying solvent is gamma butyrolactone (GBL) ([0128] of Hatakeyama). Kori does not specifically teach that the boiling point modifying solvent is Page 14 methylbutyric acid. However, the list of examples of high boiling point solvents taught by Kori is non limiting ([0137] of Kori), and Kori teaches that the high-boiling-point organic solvent need only be capable of dissolving the polymer ([0137]).
Shirai teaches that it is known that, in the capacity of a photoresist composition solvent, 3-methylbutanoic acid is an art recognized equivalent to propylene glycol diacetate, propylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate, and others taught by Kori ([0094] of Shirai). Furthermore, HMDB teaches that 3-methylbutanoic acid has a relatively high boiling point (177C; Page 5 of HMDB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the high boiling point solvent of Zuang modified by Kori and Hatakeyama (specifically disclosed by Kori) with 3-methylbutanoic acid, per the teachings of Shirai. Shirai establishes this solvent as an art recognized equivalent to those taught by Korai, and it has a relatively high boiling point. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect similar results from this substitution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/26 with respect to the rejection of independent Claim 1 has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the amendment made to Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Scanlan (US 2016/0322343), which teaches use of under bump metallization to connect packages with the claimed structure.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/26 have been fully considered with respect to the rejection of independent Claims 8 and 21 under 35 USC 103 but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Kori teaches the provision of other layers than the organic layer, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Zuang teaches a single photoresist layer and Kori teaches a reason to modify the solvent composition of that layer.
Applicant argues that Zuang does not teach the newly added steps of forming a conductive via within the photoresist and in physical contact with the metallization pattern and removing the photoresist after forming the conductive via, but it does so teach [0003]. It teaches that the via is formed and the solder material is formed in contact with the underlying seed (i.e., metallization) layer before the photoresist is removed [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang (US 2008/0299487) teaches that a fluorinated surfactant added into a photoresist material can aid in reducing the water drop residue, such a surfactant may float to the surface of the resist after the resist is formed, which can be advantageous (paragraph [0073]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights