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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
Please note that claims 10-20 have now been cancelled.
Newly submitted claims 21-31 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a microelectronic assembly, classified in B81B2201/0214.
II. Claims 21-26, drawn to a microelectronic assembly, classified in B81B2201/0214.
III. Claims 27-31, drawn to a microelectronic assembly, classified in B81B2201/0214.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group I requires a second IC die, group II does not require a second die. Group II requires the second layer of glass comprise one or more channels, group I only requires a single channel. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group I requires a second IC die, group III does not require a second IC die. Group III requires a bridge IC die, group I does not require a bridge IC die. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed group II requires one or more channels, group III does not require only one channel and instead requires multiple channels. Group III requires a bridge IC die, group II does not require a bridge IC die. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 21-31 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-9 being examined and claims 21-31 being withdrawn pursuant to the election by original presentation in this Office Action.
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 2-7 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 2 recites “the circuit” on line 1, where it is unclear which circuit is being referred to, as claim 1 lines 10-11 describes the conductive pad is coupled to a circuit in at least one of the first IC die or the second IC die. It is understood from claim 1 that there is a circuit associated with the first IC die and a circuit associated with the second IC die.
For examination, it will be interpreted that it would be either of the first or second IC die circuits being referred to.
Claims 3-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 7 recites “the circuit” on line 1, where it is unclear which circuit is being referred to, as claim 1 lines 10-11 describes the conductive pad is coupled to a circuit in at least one of the first IC die or the second IC die. It is understood from claim 1 that there is a circuit associated with the first IC die and a circuit associated with the second IC die.
For examination, it will be interpreted that it would be either of the first or second IC die circuits being referred to.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeys (US-2010/0213602-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smeys teaches a microelectronic assembly (see device of Figure 1), comprising ([0018], Figure 1):
an interposer (dielectric layers 106) comprising a first portion (dielectric layer 106a) in contact along an interface with a second portion (substrate 102 and heat sink 104) ([0018], Figure 1);
a first integrated circuit (IC) die (integrated circuit 114a) embedded in a dielectric material in the first portion (106a) of the interposer (106) ([0018], Figure 1); and
a second IC die (integrated circuit 114b) coupled to the first portion (106a) of the interposer (106) opposite to the second portion (102 and 104) (see Figure 1, where integrated circuit 114b will be coupled to dielectric layer 106a through the various layers of dielectric), wherein:
the second portion (102 and 104) comprises a glass substrate (102) with a channel (micro-channel) within the glass substrate (102) ([0025] see substrate may be any suitable material such as glass, [0026] see substrate can have mounted sensors exposed to the environment via micro-channels),
a portion of the channel (micro-channel) has an opening at the interface (see [0027] which describes an example where a sensing element is integrated into the backside of substrate 102 built inside a deep cavity where the sensor may be a capacitor that is connected with contact pads on the frontside of the substrate 102 through micro-vias, and the package 100 can be formed over these contact pads such that the capacitor is electrically coupled with at least some of the electrical devices and interconnect layers within package 100. One skilled in the art would find it obvious that the micro-channel will connect the etched deep cavity to the outside. Further, one skilled in the art would find it obvious that there would need to be an opening between layers 106a (first portion) and 104 and 102 (second portion) such that the connection described can be made),
a conductive pad in the first portion (106a) is exposed in the opening ([0027] where the sensor (capacitor) connected to some of the electrical devices and interconnect layers, where one skilled in the art would find it obvious that therefore the integrated circuit 114a will have a conductive pad that can connect to the sensor (capacitor)), and
the conductive pad is coupled to a circuit in at least one of the first IC die (114a) (from [0027] it is understood that one skilled in the art would find it obvious that the sensor (capacitor) connected to some of the electrical devices and interconnect layers would indicate that the conductive pad will be connected to the circuit of the integrated circuit 114a).
Regarding claim 2, Smeys teaches the microelectronic assembly of claim 1. Smeys further teaches wherein the circuit is configured to detect presence of a substance in the channel ([0026] see sensor can include biosensors, sensors for gas, chemical, electromagnetic, acceleration, vibration, temperature, etc. It is therefore understood that the circuit of integrated circuits 114a and/or 114b would be capable of detecting the presence of a substance in the channel).
Please note that the limitation “the circuit is configured to detect presence of a substance in the channel.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Smeys and the circuit of the integrated circuits of Smeys are capable of detecting the presence of a substance in the channel. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Smeys (see MPEP §2114).
Additionally, please note that the substance has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the microelectronic assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Smeys teaches the microelectronic assembly of claim 2. Smeys further teaches wherein:
the conductive pad comprises a portion of a sensor ([0026], [0027] where the sensing element is connected with some of the electrical devices and interconnect layers is a portion of a sensor), and
the substance is a gas ([0026] see sensors for gas).
Further, please note that the substance being detected being a gas is directed to the intended use of the apparatus, please see claim 2 supra. Further, the substance has not been positively recited in the claim and is therefore not a part of the claimed assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Smeys teaches the microelectronic assembly of claim 1. Smeys further teaches wherein the circuit is a thermal circuit (it is understood that the integrated circuits 114a and/or 114b will emit some amount of thermal energy, and are therefore thermal circuits)
The limitation “the channel is configured to carry heat away from the conductive pad.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Smeys and the micro-channels of Smeys are capable of carrying heat away from the conductive pad. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Smeys (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 8, Smeys teaches the microelectronic assembly of claim 1. Smeys further teaches wherein:
the channel (micro-channel) has an entry opening and an exit opening ([0026], [0027] where the end of the channel open to the environment is an entry opening, and then the end-most section of the connected cavity is an exit opening), and
a fluid enters the channel at the entry opening, contacts the conductive pad, and exits the channel at the exit opening ([0026], [0027], where the sample will enter through the entry opening, then indirectly contact the conductive pad (component on integrated circuit 114a), and then reach the end-most section of the cavity).
Regarding claim 9, Smeys teaches the microelectronic assembly of claim 1. Smeys further teaches wherein:
the glass substrate (102) includes conductive through-glass vias (TGVs) ([0027] see where when the sensor is a capacitor it is connected to contact pads on the front side of substrate 102 through micro-vias. Because the substrate 102 is glass, the vias are through-glass vias), and
the TGVs are around the channel ([0026], [0027] it is understood that the micro-vias will be around the etched micro-channel that connects the sensor in the cavity to the environment).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeys (US-2010/0213602-A1) in view of Melton (US-5410184-A) and Dass (US-2009/0058431-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Smeys teaches the microelectronic assembly of claim 3. Smeys does not teach wherein:
the conductive pad is a central pad of gold,
In the analogous art of microelectronic packages that comprise an integrated circuit component, Melton teaches where the integrated circuit die has bond pads that are formed of aluminum coated with sequential layers of chromium, copper, and gold to promote wetting by molten solder alloy (Melton; column 2 lines 56-66, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the integrated circuit of Smeys such that its bond pads are formed of aluminum coated with sequential layers of chromium, copper, and gold as taught by Melton because Melton teaches that this formation promotes wetting by molten solder alloy and allows for both physical and electrical connection to a substate with corresponding pads (Melton; column 2 lines 56-66, column 3 lines 24-33).
Smeys does teach that suitable sensors includes biosensors, sensors for gas, chemical, electromagnetic, acceleration, vibration, temperature, humidity, etc. (Smeys; [0026]), however Smeys does not teach a specific configuration of the sensor.
In the analogous art of gas sensors, Dass teaches a gas sensor for sensing noxious chemical gases (Dass; abstract).
Specifically, Dass teaches that a sensor includes an insulating layer on top of a conductive trace on top of a substrate 301 which allows the sensor to be operated using a field-effect mode to further tune the sensor response and eliminate heat, the substrate further includes electrical contacts 302, and then a sensor material (Dass; [0021], Figures 3A-D). As seen in Figure 4, the sensor has source 402 and drain 403 electrodes fashioned from the conductive contacts 302, where there is also a gate voltage 405 that changes the sensitivity of the device (Dass; [0026]).
Smeys is silent with regards to specific construction of gas sensor, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional gas sensors. Dass provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to have a gas sensor with a substrate, electrical contacts connected to source, drain, and gate voltages, and a sensor material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the gas sensor of Smeys have the same construction as the gas sensor taught by Dass because Dass teaches that this construction is effective for detecting gas.
It is understood that the integrated circuit of Smeys will be connected to the sensor, where therefore the integrated circuit and its bond pads will be conductively coupled to the gate voltage of the sensor. Further, the electrical contacts connected to the source and drain voltages of the sensor will be on opposite sides of each other as seen in Figure 4 of Dass, and will therefore be on either side of the integrated circuit 114a to which the sensor is connected to.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeys (US-2010/0213602-A1) in view of Melton (US-5410184-A).
Regarding claim 5, Smeys teaches the microelectronic assembly of claim 2. Smeys further teaches wherein:
the substance comprises biological molecules ([0026] where if the sensor is a biosensor, one skilled in the art would find it obvious that the substance being detected would be a biological molecule of some sort).
Further, please note that the substance being detected being a biological molecule is directed to the intended use of the apparatus, please see claim 2 supra. Further, the substance has not been positively recited in the claim and is therefore not a part of the claimed assembly.
Smeys does not teach the conductive pad has a coating on a surface exposed in the opening.
In the analogous art of microelectronic packages that comprise an integrated circuit component, Melton teaches where the integrated circuit die has bond pads that are formed of aluminum coated with sequential layers of chromium, copper, and gold to promote wetting by molten solder alloy (Melton; column 2 lines 56-66, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the integrated circuit of Smeys such that it has the bond pads and solder applied as taught by Melton because Melton teaches that this construction allows for both physical and electrical connection to a substrate with corresponding pads (Melton; column 3 lines 24-33).
The solder bumps on the integrated circuit will be a coating that is exposed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record is Smeys in view of Melton. It would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the solder of Melton (the coating) to include ligands attached. Further, it is understood that it is not the integrated circuit 114a that will be contacting the sample, rather it is the sensor that is in the substrate 102 that is contacting the sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759