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Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 21-28 are pending in this application, with claims 6-9, 16 and 23 being previously withdrawn as they were directed to non-elected species. Newly added claim 24 is also withdrawn as it is dependent on previously withdrawn claim 23.
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 15, 21-22 and 25-26 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.
Claim 15 recites that it depends from claim 14. However, there is no claim 14 present. Hence the claim is indefinite and rejected. For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as being dependent from claim 13.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the second surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Hence the claim is indefinite and therefore rejected. For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as “a second surface” in line 5. Claims 22 and 25-26 depend from claim 21 and inherit the same indefiniteness, and hence rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2014/0061897 A1, of record).
Re Claim 13, Lin teaches an interposer (200, Fig. 4, para [0047]) for a semiconductor package, comprising:
a first surface (bottom surface of 200, Fig. 4);
a second surface (top surface of 200, Fig. 4);
a plurality of redistribution structures (vias 202, para [0047], Fig. 4) located between the first surface and the second surface of the interposer (200, para [0047], Fig. 4); and
a plurality of metallic material pillars (208A+302+22A and 208B+304+22D, see annotated Fig. 4 below, also see Figs. 3C-3D, where 22A and 22D are marked, paras [0040] - [0048]) over the second surface of the interposer (top surface of 200, Fig. 4) and electrically contacting the plurality of redistribution structures (see Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of metallic material pillars over the second surface of the interposer have non-uniform height dimensions (208A+302+22A and 208B+304+22D have non-uniform heights H1 and H2 respectively, marked in annotated Fig. 4 below) and a first metallic material pillar (208A+302+22A) of the plurality of metallic material pillars has a greater height dimension than a second metallic material pillar (208B+304+22D) of the plurality of metallic material pillars (H1 is greater than H2), and the first metallic material pillar and the second metallic material pillar have equal width dimensions (width W1 of 22A of 1st pillars 208A+302+22A, and width W2 of 22D of 2nd pillars 208B+304+22D can be same, para [0026]),
wherein the plurality of metallic material pillars comprises a periodic two- dimensional array of metallic material pillars (see Fig. 1), wherein a first set of metallic material pillars comprising the first metallic material pillar (208A+302+22A) are located in a peripheral region of the array and have a first height dimension (pillars 208A+302+22A with heights H1 in region 110 are located in a peripheral region, see annotated Fig. 1 below), and a second set of metallic material pillars comprising the second metallic material pillar (208B+304+22D) are located in a central region of the array and have a second height dimension (pillars 208B+304+22D with heights H2 in region 120, are located in a central region, marked “central region” in annotated Fig. 1 below) that is less than the first height dimension (H2 is less than H1, see annotated Fig. 4 below), and the central region of the array overlaps a central point of the interposer (“central region”, marked in annotated Fig. 1 below, overlaps the central point of the transposer).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2014/0061897 A1, of record)
Re Claim 28, Lin teaches the interposer of claim 13, wherein a ratio of the height dimension of the second metallic material pillar (pillars 208B+304+22D) to the height dimension of the first metallic material pillar (pillars 208A+302+22A) is 0.85 or less (total height “H1” of 208A+302+22A and “H2” of 208B+304+22D can be 20 and 16 µm respectively, resulting in a ratio of 0.80. See below for detailed calculation).
For the pillars 208A+302+22A, the height of 22A can be 8 µm, para [0040], height of 302 is equal to the total of 24A and 26A which can be 6 µm, paras [0041] – [0042]. Explicit height of 208A is not disclosed by Lin. However, looking at Fig. 4, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to realize that the height of 208A is comparable to the height of 302 which is 6 µm. Thus, the total height of 208A+302+22A can be 20 µm.
For the pillars 208B+304+22D, the height of 22D can be 2 µm, para [0043], height of 304 is equal to the total of 24D and 26D which can be 8 µm, paras [0044] – [0045]. Explicit height of 208B is not disclosed by Lin. However, looking at Fig. 4, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to realize that the height of 208B is comparable to the height of 208A which can be 6 µm. Thus, the total height of 208B+304+22D can be 16 µm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 4-5, 11-12 and 27 are allowed.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21-22 and 25-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowable for following reasons. Most of the limitation of claim 1 are taught by Lin et al. (US 2014/0061897 A1, of record) and further in view of Elsherbini (US 2019/0385977 A1, of record), as explained in the last Office Action dated 4/1/2026. However, the prior art fails to teach the newly added limitation, wherein, “the first region of the interposer overlaps a central point of the interposer and the second region of the interposer surrounds the central region”. Lin (US 2014/0061897 A1, of record) shows a first region (region 120, Fig. 1, see claim 1 above) which overlaps a central point of the interposer 200, however, the second region (region 110, Fig. 1) does not surround the central region. This limitation is neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art of record in the Examiner’s opinion when viewed in context of the whole claim, as was also stated in the objection of claim 2 in the last Office Action dated 4/1/2026. Claim 4-5, 11-12 and 27 depend from claim 1 are allowable for at least the reasons above.
Re Claim 15, Examiner assumes that claim 15 depends from claim 13 (see 112(b) rejection above). Claim 15 recites the limitation wherein, “the peripheral region of the array including metallic material pillars having the first height dimension laterally surrounds the central region of the array on four sides”. Lin et al. (US 2014/0061897 A1, of record) does not disclose that the pillars 208A+302+22A with first height dimension H1, surrounds the central region of the array on four sides. This limitation is neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art of record in the Examiner’s opinion, when viewed in context of the independent claim 13.
Claim 21 would be allowable for following reasons. Most of the limitation of claim 21 are taught by Lin et al. (US 2014/0061897 A1, of record) and further in view of Elsherbini (US 2019/0385977 A1, of record), as explained in the last Office Action dated 4/1/2026. However, the prior art fails to teach the newly modified claim with added limitation, wherein, “an array of metallic material pillars over a second surface of the interposer having non-uniform height dimensions” such that “the second surface of the interposer facing the front surface of the package substrate”. This limitation is neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art of record when viewed in context of the whole claim. Claim 22 and 25-26 depend from claim 21 are allowable for at least the reasons above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights