Attorney’s Docket Number: AE182-US
Filing Date: 9/23/2022
Inventors: Marin et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 7/16/2026.
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 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 amendment filed on 7/16/2026 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 8, mailed on 4/23/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 122 and 125 have both been used to designate the same contacts in figure 1. 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. 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 § 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 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamba in view of Khan (US 2015/0179610).
Regarding claim 9, Gamba (see, e.g., figs. 49 and 10) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a microelectronic assembly comprising a substrate including first 102 and second layers, wherein:
The first layer 102 includes a conductive trace 108
The second layer includes a die 110 surrounded by a dielectric material 144
The die includes a conductive contact 182 at a surface facing the first layer
An interconnect 188 electrically couples the contact to the trace
Bottom surfaces of the interconnect include a liner 116
A material of the liner includes Ni, Pd, or Au (see, e.g., ¶0029)
The liner 116 of Gamba is a UBM-type structure that provides a barrier/protective interface for the interconnect 188. However, Gamba teaches the liner at the bottom interface of the interconnect and does not explicitly disclose that the liner extends along the side surfaces of the interconnect.
Khan (see, e.g., fig. 2) discloses an interconnect structure 122 having a liner 120 that is formed along both the bottom surface and the side surfaces of the interconnect. In Khan (see, e.g., ¶ [0038]), the liner is described as a UBM structure that provides protection, adhesion, and barrier properties for the interconnect, including protection against diffusion, chemical interaction, and mechanical degradation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the liner of Gamba to extend along the side surfaces of the interconnect as taught by Khan. Gamba already recognizes the use of a liner/UBM for protective and interfacial purposes at the interconnect. Khan teaches that such a liner is advantageously formed not only at the bottom but also along the sidewalls of the interconnect to provide more complete coverage and enhanced protection.
Extending the liner of Gamba from only the bottom surface to also include the side surfaces would have been a predictable modification yielding no more than the expected benefit of improved barrier coverage and reliability. The modification merely involves applying a known liner structure to additional exposed surfaces of the interconnect to perform the same known function (protection/barrier/adhesion), consistent with the teachings of Khan.
Regarding claim 10, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 49 and 10) shows that the liner 116 extends between the first 102 and second 144 layers of the substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 49 and ¶0072) shows that the trace 108 is one of a plurality of traces, the contact 182 is one of a plurality of contacts, and the interconnect 188 is one of a plurality of interconnects, wherein a pitch of the interconnects is between 25-250 µm.
Regarding claim 14, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 49) shows the assembly further comprising:
A first microelectronic component 130-1 having sixth 134 and seventh 132 contacts at a surface
A second microelectronic component 130-2 having eighth 134 and ninth 132 contacts at a surface
wherein:
The contact is a first contact 182 at a first surface of the die 110
The die further includes second and third contacts 118 at an opposing second surface
The substrate includes fourth and fifth contacts 108 on a second surface
The sixth contacts 134 are electrically coupled to the second contacts 118
The seventh contacts 132 are electrically coupled to the fourth contacts 108
The eighth contacts 134 are electrically coupled to the third contacts 118
The ninth contacts 132 are electrically coupled to the fifth contacts 108
Regarding claim 15, Gamba (see, e.g., figs. 59-61 and 10) shows the assembly further comprising a package substrate 1702 including a power source 1814:
wherein:
The substrate includes a first surface opposite to the second surface
A tenth contact 206 is on the second surface of the substrate and is electrically coupled to the trace 108
Regarding claim 16, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 49) shows all aspects of the instant invention including an integrated circuit (IC) package support comprising:
A bridge component 110 including a conductive contact 188
A conductive trace 180 having first and second opposite surfaces
A conductive via 108 coupled to the first surface of the trace
An interconnect 188 electrically coupling the bridge contact to the second surface of the trace
A liner 116 between the interconnect and the second surface trace
wherein a material of the interconnect 188 includes Ni or Sn (see, e.g., ¶0082), and the material of the liner 116 includes Ni, Pd or Au (see, e.g., ¶0029)
Regarding claim 16, see also the comments above in paragraphs 8-11 with respect to claim 9 which are considered repeated here.
Regarding claim 19, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 0072) shows that the interconnect 188 is one of a plurality of interconnects, wherein a pitch of the interconnects is between 25-250 µm.
Regarding claim 20, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 49) further shows the package support comprising a dielectric 102 having a cavity 120, wherein the bridge 110 is partially nested in the cavity with the interconnect 188 at a bottom surface of the cavity, and wherein the liner 116 is on the bottom surface of the cavity.
Regarding claim 1, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 49) shows a microelectronic assembly comprising:
A conductive pad 180 having first and second opposing surfaces
A conductive via 108 coupled to the first surface
A first microelectronic component 110 having a first conductive contact 182
An interconnect 188 coupling the contact to the second surface of the pad 180
A liner 116 between the interconnect and the second surface of the pad
wherein:
A material of the interconnect 188 includes Ni or Sn (see, e.g., par.0082)
A material of the liner 116 includes Ni, Pd or Au (see, e.g., ¶0029)
Regarding claim 1, see also the comments above in paragraphs 8-11 with respect to claim 9 which are considered repeated here.
Regarding claim 3, Khan (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the interconnect 122 is tapered, narrowing towards a bottom surface of the interconnect.
Regarding claim 4, Gamba (see, e.g., ¶0072) shows that the interconnect 188 is one of a plurality of interconnects, wherein a pitch of the interconnects is between 25-250 µm.
Regarding claim 5, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 49) shows the assembly further comprising a dielectric material 102 having a cavity 120, wherein the first component 110 is partially nested in the cavity with the first contact 182 facing the bottom of the cavity.
Regarding claim 7, Gamba (see, e.g., figs. 49 and 2) shows that the dielectric material includes first 102 and second 144 materials, wherein the first material includes the cavity 120, and the second material is on the first material and on and around the first component 110.
Regarding claim 8, Gamba (see, e.g., fig. 9) shows the assembly further comprising second and third microelectronic components 130 wherein:
The first component 110 has first and second opposing surfaces
The first contact 182 is at the first surface of the first component
The first component further includes second and third contacts 118 at its second surface
The second component 130-1 is electrically coupled to the second contact 118
The third component 130-2 is electrically coupled to the third contact
Regarding claims 17, 11 and 2, Gamba discloses a microelectronic structure including conductive and insulating elements having thicknesses selected based on design considerations. See Gamba ¶ [0031], which teaches that the “dimensions of the elements…may take any suitable values” and provides exemplary thicknesses for various elements, including thicknesses of the liner on the order of about 5 microns.
Gamba does not explicitly disclose a liner having a thickness between 50 nanometers and 2 microns as recited in the claims. However, Gamba clearly teaches that layer thicknesses are variable and may be selected as appropriate for a given application. The disclosed thicknesses (e.g., about 5 microns) are reasonably close to the claimed range, particularly the upper bound of 2 microns.
It is well established that where the claimed range is close to or overlaps with a range disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner; see also In re Peterson. Additionally, where a general range is disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum value within that range through routine experimentation is ordinarily within the skill in the art. See In re Aller.
Here, Gamba’s express teaching that dimensions may take “any suitable values” together with its disclosure of thicknesses on the order of microns, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of a layer, including a liner, could be reduced to values within the claimed range (50 nm to 2 microns) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting thickness to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed thickness range is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Gamba shows most aspects of the invention. However, the embodiment in figure 49 does not explicitly disclose a metal ring at a perimeter of the bottom surface of the cavity. Gamba nevertheless teaches such a feature in alternative embodiments. Specifically, Gamba discloses that metal in adjacent layers may form a ring around a conductive contact (¶83), and further teaches an embodiment including a metal ring proximate to the edges of the cavity and coplanar with the conductive contacts (¶86; FIG. 56). Gamba explains that such metal structures may serve as a laser stop during formation of the cavity and may also prevent undesirable electrical shorting (¶83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the primary embodiment of Gamba to include the metal ring at the perimeter of the cavity bottom surface as taught in these alternative embodiments. Doing so would have been motivated by the express teachings of Gamba to (1) facilitate fabrication, by providing a laser stop during cavity formation, and (2) improve electrical reliability, by preventing unintended electrical shorting between conductive elements.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Gamba in view of Khan because extending the liner along the sidewalls of the opening would allegedly be inconsistent with Gamba’s disclosure of a controlled, base-localized IMC/TLPS interconnect. The applicant further argues that metallizing the dielectric sidewalls would create additional reactive metal surfaces such that the IMC/TLPS material would wet, react with, and extend along the sidewalls, thereby resulting in uncontrolled wetting, variable joint volume, and potential bridging.
The argument is not persuasive. The applicant’s position is based on an unsupported assumption that the liner necessarily participates in the formation of the IMC/TLPS material 188 and that extending the liner along the sidewalls necessarily causes the IMC/TLPS material to extend along or “climb” the sidewalls. Gamba does not disclose that the liner 116 participates in the IMC reaction or that it is consumed or otherwise reacts with the interconnect 188. Rather, Gamba expressly describes interconnect 188 as an IMC or TLPS material used to conductively couple the conductive contacts 182 and 180. See Gamba: ¶0082. In the IMC embodiment, Gamba explains that the initial solder material is selected so as to be quickly converted into an IMC, while in the TLPS embodiment the material is heated to form a strong metallic bond that will not reflow during subsequent assembly operations. Thus, the “freezing” of the coupling identified by Gamba concerns the resulting interconnect after formation and its resistance to reflow during subsequent manufacturing operations; Gamba does not state that the interconnect must remain geometrically confined to the base of the opening during its formation.
Moreover, the applicant’s assertion that the IMC necessarily reacts with any metallized sidewall is not supported by Gamba. In particular, Gamba’s description of the IMC embodiment identifies a solder chemistry including a mixture of low-temperature and high-temperature solder particles suspended in a flux and epoxy carrier, and states that the initial solder material is quickly converted into an IMC. Gamba does not state that the conversion to IMC results from a reaction between the solder material 118 and the liner 116, nor does Gamba identify the liner as a reactant in the disclosed IMC formation. Indeed, as shown in FIG. 49, the liner 116 is positioned beneath the interconnect 188, with the interconnect formed on the liner, rather than the liner being identified as a component of the IMC material itself.
Accordingly, the applicant has not established that extending Gamba’s liner along the side surfaces, as taught by Khan, would necessarily alter the IMC/TLPS chemistry disclosed by Gamba. The proposed modification does not require changing Gamba’s solder chemistry, its conversion of the solder material into an IMC, or its formation of a non-reflowing TLPS bond. Rather, the modification merely extends a known liner/UBM structure to additional surfaces of the interconnect. Khan (see, e.g., fig.1 and ¶0038) teaches such a liner arrangement for providing protection, adhesion, and barrier properties along both the bottom and side surfaces of an interconnect.
The applicant’s further assertion that the modification would reintroduce “uncontrolled wetting,” “variable joint volume,” or “potential bridging” likewise is speculative. Neither Gamba nor the applicant has established that the mere presence of a liner along the sidewall necessarily causes the IMC/TLPS material to wet, react with, or extend along the sidewall. The applicant is, therefore, relying on an assumed fabrication result that is not required by the proposed combination. The proposed combination is based on the known use of a liner, as taught by Khan, to provide barrier, protection, and adhesion properties at exposed surfaces of the interconnect of Gamba.
Further, the applicant’s characterization of Gamba’s objective as requiring a “controlled, base-only converted” interconnect is not supported by the cited disclosure. Gamba states that the interconnect is selected or formed so as to “freeze” the coupling for subsequent manufacturing operations. See Gamba: ¶0082. Gamba expressly describes forming strong metallic bonds that will not reflow during subsequent assembly operations. Thus, the relevant advantage identified by Gamba is the stability of the completed coupling during subsequent processing, rather than a requirement that the completed interconnect have a particular base-only geometry.
In conclusion, the applicant has not identified a teaching in Gamba that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid providing a liner along the side surfaces of the interconnect, nor has the applicant established that doing so would prevent Gamba’s interconnect from forming the disclosed strong, non-reflowing conductive bond. Accordingly, the applicant’s argument does not adequately rebut the rationale for combining Gamba and Khan, and the rejection is maintained.
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 Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone 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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights