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 .
Summary
The Applicants arguments and claim amendments received on 12/04/2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 10-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-9 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2025 and 01/29/2026 are considered by the examiner.
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 “plurality of first layers” 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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation reciting “chemically bonded to the one of the first layers by covalent bonds” is indefinite. In lines 6-7 of claim 1, the language of the claim requires “wherein the second layer is chemically bonded to one of the first layers by an oxygen containing ligand and/or a nitrogen containing ligand”. It is not clear of the aforementioned limitation of claim 2 is intended to further limit the chemical bonding recited by claim 1 or recites two different types of chemical bonds being present such that there are chemical bonds formed both from the oxygen containing ligand and/or a nitrogen containing ligand as well as covalent bonds.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation reciting “wherein the second layer comprises amine ligands and/or silanol ligands at a surface between the second layer and the first layer” is indefinite. Independent claim 1 recites that the “second layer is chemically bonded to one of the first layers by an oxygen containing ligand and/or a nitrogen containing ligand”. It is not clear if claim 3 is intended to further limit the oxygen containing ligand and/or a nitrogen containing ligand previously recited in claim 1, or if claim 3 is reciting additional ligands present.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the amine ligands” as claim 1 does not recite or require amine ligands.
As it is not clear what the structural requirements of the claim are, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unable to be determined and prior art is unable to be applied.
Regarding claim 5, the claim depends from claim 4 and therefore is indefinite for the reasons expressed above with respect to claim 4.
Additionally, As it is not clear what the structural requirements of the claim are, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unable to be determined and prior art is unable to be applied.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation reciting “wherein the second layer is over a top surface of the trace and sidewall surfaces of the trace” is indefinite as it depends from claim 6 which requires that the second layer “is not continuous over a surface of the trace”.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 and 4, 5 and 6 of copending Application No. 17/707351 (US 2023/0317614) (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 of instant application 17/707371 corresponds to claims 1 and 4 of reference application 17/707351.
Claim 3 of instant application 17/707371 corresponds to claims 1 and 4 of reference application 17/707351.
Claim 4 of instant application 17/707371 corresponds to claim 5 of reference application 17/707351.
Claim 5 of instant application 17/707371 corresponds to claim 6 of reference application 17/707351.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manepalli et al. (US 2020/0365533) in view of Kuhr et al. (US 2009/0056994).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Manepalli et al. teaches a microelectronic package substrate (electronic package) comprising a plurality of dielectric layers (300, 308, 336; plurality of first layers) comprised of an organic resin, such as epoxy or other polymerizable resins); conductive structures (304, 316; trace) within the plurality of dielectric layers (300, 308, 336; plurality of first layers), and an adhesion layer (324A; second layer) comprised of SiNx which provides for mechanical connections for improved adhesion with surrounding dielectric layers but does not conduct a signal (Figure 3A-3F, [0011-0016, 0018-0034]).
Manepalli et al. does not expressly teach that the adhesion layer (324A; second layer) is chemically bonded to one of the plurality of dielectric layers (300, 308, 336; plurality of first layers) by an oxygen containing ligand and/or a nitrogen containing ligand.
Kuhr et al. teaches an electronic package and methods of treating a surface to promote binding of a metal layer to an additional layer (Figure 1-4; [0026-0037,0062-0078, 0085-0101]). Kuhr et al. teaches that ligands including oxygen and nitrogen, such as an amine ligand, are used to promote adhesion between an epoxy substrate (102, 104) and a copper layer (110, 112, 114) (Figure 2, [0026-0037, 0062-0078, 0085-0101]).
As both Manepalli et al. and Kuhr et al. teaches electronic packaging including bonding between epoxy layer and metal layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the adhesion layer (324A; second layer) taught by Manepalli et al. to include the ligands taught by Kuhr et al. as Kuhr et al. teaches the presence of such ligands promotes the adhesion between epoxy layer and copper layers, thus strengthening the interlayer adhesion of the packaging.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Manepalli et al. in view of Kuhr et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Manepalli et al. further teaches, as shown in Figure 3D that the adhesion layer (324A; second layer) is not continuous over the surface of the center conductive structure (304; trace), and is over a top surface and side wall of the conductive structures (304; trace).
Regarding claim 8, Manepalli et al. in view of Kuhr et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Manepalli et al. further teaches a via as a shown in Figure 3C that is through one of the plurality of dielectric layers (300, 308, 336; plurality of first layers) and contacts a top surface of the center conductive structures (304; trace).
Regarding claim 9, Manepalli et al. in view of Kuhr et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Manepalli et al. further teaches that the surface roughness of the conductive structures (304; trace) is less than 50nm ([0015, 0021]), falling within the claimed range of “less than approximately 1mm”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manepalli et al. (US 2020/0365533) in view of Kuhr et al. (US 2009/0056994) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0269872).
Regarding claim 2, Manepalli et al. in view of Kuhr et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, however, the reference does not expressly teach that the adhesion layer (324A; second layer) is chemically bonded to the plurality of dielectric layers (300, 308, 336; plurality of first layers) by covalent bonds.
Kim et al. teaches an electronic package comprising a packaging substrate (110, 120, 130) with a plurality of insulating layers (114, 113, 112, 111, 121, 131, 132; plurality of first layers) and a circuit pattern (140; trace) embedded within the plurality of insulating layers (114, 113, 112, 111, 121, 131, 132; plurality of first layers), and a buffer layer (400; second layer) between the plurality of insulating layers (114, 113, 112, 111, 121, 131, 132; plurality of first layers) and the circuit pattern (140; trace) (Figure 1, 3-6; [0041-0053, 0071-0125, 0136-0174]). Kim et al. teaches that the buffer layer (400; second layer) is comprised of silicon and nitrogen, such that the buffer layer (400; second layer) is chemically bonded via covalent bonds to one of the plurality of insulating layers (114, 113, 112, 111, 121, 131, 132; plurality of first layers) ([0175-0180]).
As Manepalli et al., Kuhr et al. and Kim et al. are all in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesion layer (324A; second layer) of Manepalli et al. to include the chemical bonds via covalent bonds as taught by Kim et al. to improve adhesion, strengthen adhesion and improve reliability (see Kim et al. [0041-0052, 0096, 0132-0178, 0200-0209]).
Response to Arguments
Response-Drawings
In the response filed 12/04/2025, the Applicant did not address the previous objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Therefore, objection is maintained.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is overcome by Applicants amendments to the claim in the response filed 12/04/2025.
The rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are maintained for the reasons expressed above. The Applicant has not provided any arguments specifically directed to these rejections in the response filed 12/04/2025.
Response-Claim Rejections – Double Patenting
In the response filed 12/04/2025, the Applicant has not provided any arguments directed to the provisional double patenting rejection made in the previous office action, therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the secondary reference to Kuhr et al. does not disclose ligands for bonding a layer comprising an organic material to a layer comprising silicone and nitrogen, and therefore, Manepalli et al. in view of Kuhr et al. does not teach the combination of features required by claim 1. This argument is not persuasive.
Kuhr et al. teaches an electronic package and methods of treating a surface to promote binding of a metal layer to an additional layer (Figure 1-4; [0026-0037,0062-0078, 0085-0101]). Kuhr et al. teaches that ligands including oxygen and nitrogen, such as an amine ligand, are used to promote adhesion between an epoxy substrate (102, 104) and a copper layer (110, 112, 114) (Figure 2, [0026-0037, 0062-0078, 0085-0101]). Kuhr et al. further teaches various embodiments for utilizing molecular species to electronic material surfaces, such as those surfaces comprised of silicon nitride, metal nitride, metals, silicon, silicon oxide, printed circuit boards, carbon based materials such as polymer and epoxides, wherein the ligand binding is expected to perform the same to any of the disclosed surfaces ([0057-0078, 0085-0101]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785