DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 06/09/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16.
Specification Objection
The specification has been checked to the extend necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Claims 12 are substantial duplicates of claims 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sankman (US 2019/0363046).
Regarding claim 1, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) all aspects of a microelectronics package 224 (see, e.g., Sankman: abstract), comprising:
A core material 102-1/102-2
A first plurality of traces 126 on the core material 102-1/102-2
A first plurality of pads 124 on the core material 102-1/102-2
A layer 130 on surfaces of the core material 102-1/102-2 and on first portions of surfaces of the first plurality of pads 124
The layer 130 including silicon and nitrogen (see, e.g., Sankman: par. [0035])
The layer 130 defining respective openings 128 to expose second portions of the surfaces of the first plurality of pads 124
Regarding claim 2, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the layer 130 encapsulates the core material 102-1/102-2.
Regarding claims 3, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the core material 102-1/102-2 has a first surface and a second surface, the first plurality of traces 126 and the first plurality of pads 124 attached to opposite surfaces (a stack of element 224 can be done as it is shown in Sankman: par. [0037], where it is said: “ The operations of figs. 2A-2M is repeated as desired to form multiple layers of features in the IC package support 100. The resulting assembly may be further processed to form the conductive contacts 135, and any additional operations may also be performed”).
Regarding claim 4, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the core material 102-1/102-2 has a first surface and a second surface, both the first plurality of traces 126 and the first plurality of pads 124 attached to the first surface or the second surface (based on the Sankman: par. [0037], where it is said: “ The operations of figs. 2A-2M is repeated as desired to form multiple layers of features in the IC package support 100. The resulting assembly may be further processed to form the conductive contacts 135, and any additional operations may also be performed”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the layer 130 comprises silicon nitride (see, e.g., Sankman: par. [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the microelectronics package 224 does not contain a solder resist material proximate to the layer 130.
Regarding claim 9, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) all aspects of a microelectronics package 224 (see, e.g., Sankman: abstract), comprising:
A first plurality of stacked layers 102-1/102-2 (a stack of element 224 can be done as it is shown in Sankman: par. [0037], where it is said: “ The operations of figs. 2A-2M is repeated as desired to form multiple layers of features in the IC package support 100. The resulting assembly may be further processed to form the conductive contacts 135, and any additional operations may also be performed”).
Respective ones of the plurality of stacked layers 102-1/102-2 comprise:
A core material 102-1/102-2
A first plurality of traces 126 on the core material 102-1/102-2
A first plurality of pads 124 on the core material 102-1/102-2
A layer 130 on surfaces of the core material 102-1/102-2 and on first portions of surfaces of the first plurality of pads 124
The layer 130 including silicon and nitrogen (see, e.g., Sankman: par. [0035])
The layer 130 defining respective openings 128 to expose second portions of the surfaces of the first plurality of pads 124
Regarding claim 10, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the respective ones of the first plurality of stacked layers 102-1/102-2 is encapsulated by the layer 130.
Regarding claim 11, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the first plurality of traces 126 and the first plurality of pads 124 are attached to opposite surfaces of a respective core material 102-1/102-2.
Regarding claim 12, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the first plurality of traces 126 and the first plurality of pads 126 are attached to opposite surfaces of a respective core material 102-1/102-2.
Regarding claim 16, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) that the microelectronics package 224 does not contain a solder resist material in between the first plurality of stacked layers 102-1/102-2.
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.
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankman in view of Yu (US 2020/0185330).
Regarding claim 5, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) the layer 130 on the first surfaces of the first plurality of pads 124.
However, Sankman fails (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) to show that the layer 130 has a thickness of approximately 50 microns or less. Yu, in a similar device to Sankman, shows (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 5) a layer 118 that has a thickness of approximately 50 microns or less (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0035]). Yu also shows (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 5) that the layer 118 is a passivation layer over the pad 119 (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a thickness of the layer of Yu in the device of Sankman to achieve a certain thickness of the passivation layer over the pad.
Furthermore, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having different thicknesses, and differences in thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the thickness of the layer, and Yu have identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these thicknesses to be different in the device of Sankman in view of Yu.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) the layer 130 of a least one of the first plurality of stacked layers 102-1/102-2.
However, Sankman fails (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) to show that the ) the layer 130 of a least one of the first plurality of stacked layers 102-1/102-2 has a thickness of approximately 50 microns or less. Yu, in a similar device to Sankman, shows (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 5) a layer 118 that has a thickness of approximately 50 microns or less (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0035]). Yu also shows (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 5) that the layer 118 is a passivation layer over the pad 119 (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a thickness of the layer of Yu in the device of Sankman to achieve a certain thickness of the passivation layer over the pad.
Furthermore, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having different thicknesses, and differences in thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 26) of the thickness of the layer, and Yu have identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization (see, e.g., Yu: par. [0035]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have these thicknesses to be different in the device of Sankman in view of Yu.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankman in view of Lu (US 2019/0311979).
Regarding claim 7, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) the respective ones of the first plurality of pads 124.
However, Sankman fails (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) to show that respective ones of the first plurality of pads have a surface roughness on an order of nanometers. Sankman is silent (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) of the surface roughness (see, e.g., Sankman: par. [0017]). Lu, in a similar device to Sankman, shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 4) that the first plurality pads 23 has a surface roughness of the surface 21 on an order of nanometers (see, e.g., Lu: par. [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either surface roughness of Lu or the surface roughness of Sankman because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as values of surface roughness of pads in semiconductor device packages, as taught by Lu and by Sankman, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Sankman shows (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) the respective ones of the first plurality of pads 124.
However, Sankman fails (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) to show that respective ones of a subset of the first plurality of pads have a surface roughness on an order of nanometers. Sankman is silent (see, e.g., Sankman: figs. 2A-2M, especially fig. 2M) of the surface roughness (see, e.g., Sankman: par. [0017]). Lu, in a similar device to Sankman, shows (see, e.g., Lu: fig. 4) that the first plurality pads 23 has a surface roughness of the surface 21 on an order of nanometers (see, e.g., Lu: par. [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either surface roughness of Lu or the surface roughness of Sankman because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as values of surface roughness of pads in semiconductor device packages, as taught by Lu and by Sankman, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments, and finds them to be unpersuasive due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
This action is made final. The 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights