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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to a restriction requirement mailed on 10/23/2025, the Applicant elected Invention I (Group) drawn to a package structure encompassing claims 1-17, without traverse on 11/14/2025. Non-elected Invention II (Group II) drawn to a method encompassing claims 18-20 is withdrawn. Elected claims 1-17 are examined below.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Section 2173.02.I. of the MPEP provides the following guidance on how pre-issuance claims under examination are construed differently than patented claims:
Here, claim 9 is indefinite, because the term "high speed" is a relative and subjective term that creates a zone of uncertainty around the limitation of "trace." A "high speed trace" to one may not be a "high speed trace" to another one of ordinary skill in the art. “Hight speed” has not ascertained a customary meaning in the art, so the Applicant would have needed to define the limitation of "high speed" to set forth an ordinary meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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 1-3, 8, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent No. US 9,196,752 B2 to Baskaran et al. (“Baskaran”).
Fig. of 17B of Baskaran has been annotated to support the rejections below:
[AltContent: textbox (AG3)][AltContent: textbox (CT2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MS2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MS1)][AltContent: textbox (MS3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (MS4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BI)][AltContent: textbox (CT)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AG1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RS)][AltContent: textbox (AG2)][AltContent: textbox (SUB2)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (SUB1)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (SUB3)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
520
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Baskaran teaches an integrated circuit package structure (see Fig. 17A or Fig. 17B), comprising:
a first substrate SUB1 comprising a first metal structure MS1 (col. 8, ln 33-50 - “LMI structure 1704…Again, it should be noted that a variety of different substrates may be coupled to the substrate 100 using LMI structures or LMI-type structures (e.g., C4 bumps)…”; col. 7, ln 65 - col. 8, ln 8 - “The LMI bump 1500 may be formed using metals such as copper, aluminum, tungsten, alloys of these metals.”) on a surface of the first substrate SUB1;
a second substrate SUB2 comprising a second metal structure MS2 (col. 8, ln 33-50 - “LMI structure 1706”) on a surface of the second substrate SUB2, wherein the first and second metal structures MS1, MS2 are in direct physical contact at a bonding interface BI therebetween;
a conductive trace CT (col. 7, ln 17-51 - “The deposition of the conformal metal liner 1200 results in the formation of two pairs of parallel metal plates, a first pair of parallel plates 1202 that are fixed and a second pair of parallel plates 1204 that are on the cantilever 904 and are therefore moveable.”) on the surface of the first substrate SUB1 adjacent (near) to the bonding interface BI and over a recessed surface RS of the first substrate SUB1; and
a first air gap AG1 between the conductive trace CT and bonding interface BI and a second air gap AG2 (col. 6, ln 7-26 - “deep trenches 902”) between the conductive trace CT and the recessed surface RS of the first substrate SUB1.
Regarding claim 2, Baskaran teaches the first and second substrates SUB1, SUB2 that comprise glass (col. 3, ln 28-38 - “The ILD layers may be formed using dielectric materials…such as…fluorosilicate glass (FSG)…or organosilicate glass.”).
Regarding claim 3, Baskaran teaches a portion of the first air gap AG1 that is between the first substrate SUB1 and the second substrate SUB2.
Regarding claim 8, Baskaran teaches the second substrate SUB2 that comprises a third metal structure MS3 on a side opposite the second metal structure MS2, wherein the third metal structure MS3 that is direct physical contact with a fourth metal structure MS4 on a surface of a third substrate MS3, and wherein a third air gap AG3 is between the fourth metal structure MS4 and a conductive trace CT2 on the surface of the third substrate MS3.
Regarding claim 9, a limitation of “high speed” in “high speed” does not structurally distinguish the claimed integrated circuit package over the integrated circuit package of Baskaran as it is directed to an intended use of the “conductive trace.”
Regarding independent claim 11, Baskaran teaches an integrated circuit package structure (see Fig 18. see also Fig. 17A or Fig. 17B), comprising:
a first substrate SUB1 comprising a first plane structure MS1 (col. 8, ln 33-50 - “LMI structure 1704…Again, it should be noted that a variety of different substrates may be coupled to the substrate 100 using LMI structures or LMI-type structures (e.g., C4 bumps)…”)”; col. 7, ln 65 - col. 8, ln 8 - “The LMI bump 1500 may be formed using metals such as copper, aluminum, tungsten, alloys of these metals.”) on a surface of the first substrate SUB1;
a second substrate SUB2 comprising a second plane structure MS2 (col. 8, ln 33-50 - “LMI structure 1706”) on a surface of the second substrate SUB2, wherein the first and second plane structures MS1, MS2 are in direct physical contact with each other;
a conductive trace CT (col. 7, ln 17-51 - “The deposition of the conformal metal liner 1200 results in the formation of two pairs of parallel metal plates, a first pair of parallel plates 1202 that are fixed and a second pair of parallel plates 1204 that are on the cantilever 904 and are therefore moveable.”) on the surface of the first substrate SUB1 adjacent (near) between the first and second plane structures MS1, MS2; and
a first air gap AG1 between the conductive trace CT and a bonding interface BI between the first and second plane structures MS1, MS2;
an integrated circuit die 1700 (col. 8, ln 33-50 - “memory module 1700”) coupled to at least one of the first substrate SUB1 or the second substrate SUB2;
a power supply BATTERY (see Fig. 18) coupled to the IC package to provide power to the integrated circuit die 1700.
Regarding claim 12, Baskaran teaches the first and second plane structures MS1, MS2 that comprises a conductive material.
Regarding claim 13, Baskaran teaches the conductive material that comprises copper or a copper alloy (col. 7, ln 65 - col. 8, ln 8 - “The LMI bump 1500 may be formed using metals such as copper…alloys of these metals.”).
Regarding claim 14, a limitation of “wherein the dielectric material comprises one or more of silicon, nitrogen, or oxygen” is optional as the limitation is one of the two disjunctive choices recited in claim 12. Since claim 12 has been construed such that the first and second plane structures comprise a conductive material and claim 14 which depends from claim 12 recites the non-chosen dielectric material, claim 14 would be optional.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baskaran.
Regarding claim 15, Baskaran does not specifically disclose a particular thickness of each of the first and second plane structures, so Baskaran does not teach a combined height of between 1 micron and 100 microns.
The only difference between the claimed structure and the structure taught by Baskaran is the claimed combined height.
However, according to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here 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 (CCPA 1955).
Here, Baskaran teaches a general condition of the first and second plane structures that space apart the first and second substrates. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed specific condition of the combined height being between 1 micron and 100 microns (which is a wide range encompassing three orders of magnitude of heights) produces unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree over said general condition as taught by Baskaran, claim 15 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Also, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed structure and the structure of Baskaran is a relative dimension of the combined height of between 1 micron and 100 micron, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed structure is not patentably distinct from the structure of Baskaran. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the structure such that combined height is between 1 micron and 100 microns with a reasonable expectation of providing an air gap between the first and second plane structures that is as miniaturized as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making device smaller as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
Regarding claim 16, Baskaran does not specifically disclose a particular height of the air gap, so Baskaran does not teach the height that is between 1 micron and 30 microns.
The only difference between the claimed structure and the structure taught by Baskaran is the claimed height of the air gap.
However, according to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here 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 (CCPA 1955).
Here, Baskaran teaches a general condition of the first and second plane structures that space apart the first and second substrates. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed specific condition of the height of the air gap being between 1 micron and 30 microns (which is a wide range encompassing an order of magnitude of heights) produces unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree over said general condition as taught by Baskaran, claim 16 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed structure and the structure of Baskaran is a relative dimension of the combined height of between 1 micron and 100 micron, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed structure is not patentably distinct from the structure of Baskaran. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the structure such that combined height is between 1 micron and 100 microns with a reasonable expectation of providing an air gap between the first and second plane structures that is as miniaturized as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making device smaller as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
B. Prior-art rejections based on Lin
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 4-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2013/0283912 A1 to Lin et al. (“Lin”).
Fig. 1 of Lin has been annotated to support the rejections below:
[AltContent: textbox (MS1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AG3’)][AltContent: textbox (AG3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AG2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CT)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AG1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BI)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
269
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Lin teaches an integrated circuit package structure (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a first substrate 114 comprising a first metal structure MS1 on a surface of the first substrate 114;
a second substrate 113 comprising a second metal structure 138 on a surface of the second substrate 113, wherein the first and second metal structures MS1, 138 are in direct physical contact at a bonding interface BI therebetween;
a conductive trace CT on the surface of the first substrate 114 adjacent (near) to the bonding interface BI and over a recessed surface RS of the first substrate 114; and
a first air gap AG1 between the conductive trace CT and bonding interface BI and a second air gap 116 (para [0010] - “a cavity 116 (or void)”) between the conductive trace CT and the recessed surface RS of the first substrate 114.
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the first metal structure MS1 and the conductive trace CT that comprise the same material.
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches a third air gap AG3 or AG3’ that is adjacent the second air gap AG2.
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches a pylon 140 that is between the second air gap AG2 and the third air gap AG3’.
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches a portion 134 of the conductive trace CT on the pylon 140 that comprises a narrowed width or a rectangular extension 134.
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the first metal structure MS1 and the conductive trace CT that comprises substantially the same thickness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Baskaran.
Regarding independent claim 11, Lin teaches an integrated circuit package structure (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a first substrate 114 comprising a first plane structure MS1 on a surface of the first substrate 114;
a second substrate 113 comprising a second plane structure 138 on a surface of the second substrate 113, wherein the first and second plane structures MS1, 138 are in direct physical contact with each other;
a conductive trace CT on the surface of the first substrate 114 adjacent (near) between the first and second plane structures MS1, 138; and
a first air gap AG1 between the conductive trace CT and a bonding interface BI between the first and second plane structures MS1, 138;
an integrated circuit die (para [0011] - “In an exemplary embodiment, the base structure 114 is realized as substrate (or die) of a semiconductor material 115”) coupled to at least one of the first substrate 114.
Lin does not teach
a power supply coupled to the IC package to provide power to the integrated circuit die.
However, powering an IC package using a power supply such as a batter is well known in the semiconductor art. Baskaran teaches the use of a BATTERY (see Fig. 18) coupled to the IC package to provide power to the integrated circuit die 1700.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the IC package of Lin with a battery power supply taught by Baskaran as a matter of common sense to provide power to the IC package because “all the claimed elements were know in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).” (quoting Section 2143.02 of the MPEP).
Regarding claim 17, Lin of the combination above further teaches the conductive trace CT that is substantially coplanar with the bond interface BI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2021/0246016 A1 to Pindl et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 13 January 2026
1 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 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.