DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s RCE amendments filed on 10/31/2025.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection mailed on 09/05/2025. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2025 has been entered.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed as an RCE submission on 10/31/2025, responding to the Office action mailed on 09/05/2025 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12-14, 16, and 18. Claim 7 was cancelled by the Applicant.
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 1-4, 6, 8, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Watanabe (US 2018/0032192) in view of Osawa (US 10405428) in further view of We (US 9401350).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) shows all aspects of the instant invention including an electrical connection structure, comprising:
A first substrate 20/BM
A first conductive pad L2, disposed on the first substrate 20/BM, wherein the first conductive pad L2 comprises a first upper surface
A second substrate 10
A second conductive pad L1, disposed on the second substrate 10, wherein the second conductive pad L1 comprises a second upper surface
An intermediate layer OC/SE/12, disposed between the first substrate 20/BM and the second substrate 10
A through hole VA/VE, penetrating the first substrate 20/BM and a part of the intermediate layer OC/SE/12 to expose a part of the second upper surface of the second conductive pad L1
A side wall of the through hole VA/VE disposed in and in contact with the intermediate layer OC/SE/12
A conductive material C, partially disposed in the through hole VA/VE
wherein:
The conductive material C comprises a narrowest portion and a first contact portion in contact with the second upper surface
A length of the first contact portion is greater than a length of the narrowest portion in a cross-sectional view
Watanabe, however, fails (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) to show that the through hole VA/VE does not penetrate the second conductive pad L1. Osawa, in a similar device to Watanabe, discloses (see, e.g., Osawa: figs. 11) a through hole VA/VC that does not penetrate the second conductive pad L1A (see, e.g., Osawa: col.15/II.12-31). Osawa also teaches (see, e.g., Osawa: figs. 11) that, the contact hole V1 does not penetrate the first conductive layer L1 in order to have a lower end (end in the first substrate SUB1 side) CBT of the connecting material C formed in the contact hole V1 that contacts the first conductive layer L1 in the upper surface L1A side which is opposed to the second substrate SUB2 (see, e.g., Osawa: col.15/II.12-31).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have through hole that does not penetrate the second conductive pad as suggested by Osawa in the electrical connection structure of Watanabe to have a lower end of the connecting material planarly contacting the first conductive layer in its upper surface.
Watanabe in view of Osawa fails (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) to shows that the side wall of the through hole VA/VE comprises different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the side wall of the through hole 150a with different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the side wall VA/VE disclosed by Watanabe in view of Osawa (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular circular profile or oval profile claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed shape of the side wall of the through hole comprising different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view is known in the art: We, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, We: figs. 5 and 9) the shape of the side wall of the through hole comprising different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view is known.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of the side wall of the through hole comprising different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view of Watanabe in view of Osawa, because side wall of the through hole is known in the semiconductor art to have different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view similarly used for in instant invention and We, as suggested by We, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) shows that:
The conductive material C comprises a second contact portion in contact with the first upper surface
The length of the second contact portion is greater than the length of the narrowest portion
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that:
The conductive material C comprises a second contact portion in contact with the first upper surface
The length of the second contact portion is greater than the length of the first contact portion
The length of the first contact portion is greater than the length of the narrowest portion
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that:
The first conductive L2 comprises a side surface adjacent to the though hole VA/VE
The conductive material C is in contact with the side surface and the second contact portion
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that:
The through hole VA/VE comprises at least one through hole wide portion
The conductive material C fills the at least one though hole wide portion
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that a material of the intermediate layer OC/SE/12 comprises an organic material, an inorganic material, or a combination thereof (see, e.g., par. [0106]).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that the conductive material C has an arc-shaped upper surface.
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that:
The first substrate 20/BM comprises a base layer BM and a dielectric layer 20 (see, e.g., Watanabe: par. [0075])
The dielectric layer 20 (see, e.g., Watanabe: par. [0075]) is disposed on the base layer BM
The first conductive pad L2 is disposed on the dielectric layer 20
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that a material of the second substrate 10 comprises glass, quartz, sapphire, ceramic, polycarbonate (PC), polyimide (PI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a combination thereof (see, e.g., Watanabe: par. [0075]).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We in further view of Kamijo (US 2018/0033969).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) most aspects of the instant invention including an electrical connection structure comprising a through hole VA/VE. Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We also teaches (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that a diameter of the though hole VA/VE (see, e.g., Watanabe: par. [0094]) first gradually decreases in a direction from the first substrate 20/BM toward the second upper surface.
Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We, however, fails (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) to specify that the diameter of the through hole VA/VE secondary gradually increases in the direction from the first substrate 20/BM toward the second upper surface. Kamijo, in a similar electrical connection structure to Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We, teaches (see, e.g., Kamijo: fig.1) that the diameter of the through hole VB1 secondary gradually increases in the direction from the first substrate 20 toward the second upper surface A11 (see, e.g., Kamijo: par. [0042]). Kamijo also shows that tapered shape of the through hole by gradually increasing the diameter of the through hole the direction from the first substrate 20 toward the second upper surface A11 is to increase the area of contact between the conductive material in the through hole VB1 and the second conductive pad L1 (see, e.g., Kamijo: fig. 1 and par. [0044]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include tapered shape of the through hole by gradually increasing the diameter of the through hole the direction from the first substrate toward the second upper surface of Kamijo in the electrical connection structure of Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We to increase the area of contact between the conductive material in the through hole and the second conductive pad
Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We, however, fails (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) to specify that the diameter of the through hole VA/VE secondary gradually increases in the direction from the first substrate 20/BM toward the second upper surface. Kamijo, in a similar electrical connection structure to Watanabe, teaches (see, e.g., Kamijo: fig.1) that the diameter of the through hole VB1 secondary gradually increases in the direction from the first substrate 20 toward the second upper surface A11 (see, e.g., Kamijo: par. [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the through hole of Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We or the tapered through hole of Kamijo because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as though holes as parts of the electrical connection structures, as taught by Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We and by Kamijo, 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 16, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) most aspects of the instant invention including a connecting material C. Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We also shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that the connecting material C is conductive (see, e.g., Watanabe: par. [0125]).
Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We, however, fails (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) to specify that the conductive material C is tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb), hafnium (HI), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), zirconium (Zr), tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), tin (Sn), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), aurum (Au), or an alloy or a combination thereof. Kamijo, in a similar electrical connection structure to Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We, teaches (see, e.g., Kamijo: fig.1) that the connecting material C is silver (Ag) (see, e.g., Kamijo: par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the conductive material of Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We or the silver contacting material of Kamijo because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as materials for the electrical connection structures, as taught by Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We and by Kamijo, 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Watanabe in in view of Osawa in view of We in further view of Hirauchi (US 2010/0226016).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We shows (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) most aspects of the instant invention including a first substrate 20/BM that comprises a base layer BM and a dielectric layer 20. Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We teaches (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) that a material of the dielectric layer comprises an inorganic material (see, e.g., Watanabe: par. [0075]).
Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We, however, fails (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) to specify that a material of the base layer BM comprises a polymer. Watanabe (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) teaches that the material of light-shielding layer BM is organic. Hirauchi, in a similar film layer structure to Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We, teaches (see, e.g., Hirauchi: fig.5) that the light-shielding layer 1 is a polymer (see, e.g., Hirauchi: claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the organic light-shielding layer of Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We or the polymer light-shielding layer of Hirauchi because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as layers of the electrical connection structures, as taught by Watanabe in view of Osawa in view of We and by Hirauchi, 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.
The applicants argue:
Watanabe in view of Osawa fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious that “… a sidewall of the through hole … comprises different first and second slopes in a cross- sectional view”, as recited in exemplary claims 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, We, in a similar device to Watanabe in view of Osawa, discloses (see, We: figs. 5 and 9), a shape of the side wall of the through hole comprising different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the side wall of the through hole 150a with different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the side wall VA/VE disclosed by Watanabe in view of Osawa (see, e.g., Watanabe: figs. 14 and 15) as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular circular profile or oval profile claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed shape of the side wall of the through hole comprising different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view is known in the art: We, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, We: figs. 5 and 9) the shape of the side wall of the through hole comprising different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view is known.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of the side wall of the through hole comprising different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view of Watanabe in view of Osawa, because side wall of the through hole is known in the semiconductor art to have different first and second slopes in a cross-sectional view similarly used for in instant invention and We, as suggested by We, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
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