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 .
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0091505 (as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 18, Liao teaches a method comprising: depositing a polymeric film 108 on a surface of a glass substrate 408 [0023,0025]; the polymeric film comprising polymer molecules with an R1 group, an R2 group, a polymer backbone between the R1 group and R2 group, and an R3 group side-attached to the polymer backbone ; curing the polymeric film (figure 10B); and depositing a metal 110 on the polymeric film (figure 11).
Regarding claim 22, Liao teaches the R1 groups comprise one or more of an amine, carboxylic acid, epoxide, and alkene.
Regarding claim 23, Liao teaches the R2 groups comprise one or more of an azole family material, imidazole, pyrimidine, indazole, histidine, thiol, phosphate, cyanoacrylate, amides, imides, hydroxyl, amines, phosphines, thiol, thiolate, thioacetate, disulfide, alkyl azide, aryl azide, nitrile, phosphate, silyl, alkyl, phosphonate ester, phosphonamide, sulfonamides, sulfenate, sulfinate, sulfonate, boronic acid, phosphonic acids, carboxylic acids, phosphorous dichloride, alkenes, and an alkyne material (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 24, Liao teaches the R3 groups comprise one or more of an epoxide, alkene, amine, carboxylic acid, zwitterion, azole family material, thiol, phosphate, cyanoacrylate; amides, and imides (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 25, Liao teaches the polymer backbone comprises one or more of Polysiloxane, Poly(methyl methacrylate), Poly(N-vinyl acetamide), Polyvinylidene fluoride, and Polystyrene (as shown in figure above).
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0091505 (as cited in previous Office Action) in view of Chang et al, US Patent 9,589,969 (newly submitted)
Regarding claim 1, Liao teaches an apparatus comprising: a substrate 420 [0029]; a metal 110 [0031]; and a polymeric layer 108 [0032] between and contact with the metal and the substrate, the polymeric layer comprising polymer molecules with an R1 group, an R2 group, a polymer backbone between the R1 group and R2 group, and an R3 group side-attached to the polymer backbone, wherein the polymeric layer is bonded to the substrate via the R1 groups and bonded to the metal via the R2 groups (as shown in figure below. See also figures 10B-10C and 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
273
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liao fails to teach the substrate is made of glass
However, Chang teaches that glass is one of several materials that is generally-used in the art to form an encapsulant layer (see column 3, lines 17-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang with that of Liao because glass is one of several materials that is generally-used in the art to form an encapsulant layer
Regarding claim 2, Liao teaches the R3 groups are cross-linked between a polymer backbone of a first polymer molecule and a polymer backbone of a second polymer molecule (figure 10B).
Regarding claim 3, Liao and Chang fail to teach the polymeric layer is between 3 nm to 20 nm thick.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, Liao teaches the R1 groups comprise one or more of an amine, carboxylic acid, epoxide, and alkene (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Liao the R2 groups comprise one or more of an azole family material, imidazole, pyrimidine, indazole, histidine, thiol, phosphate, cyanoacrylate, amides, imides, hydroxyl, amines, phosphines, thiol, thiolate, thioacetate, disulfide, alkyl azide, aryl azide, nitrile, phosphate, silyl, alkyl, phosphonate ester, phosphonamide, sulfonamides, sulfenate, sulfinate, sulfonate, boronic acid, phosphonic acids, carboxylic acids, phosphorous dichloride, alkenes, and an alkyne material (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 6, Liao teaches the R3 groups comprise one or more of an epoxide, alkene, amine, carboxylic acid, zwitterion, azole family material, thiol, phosphate (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 7, Liao teaches the polymer backbone comprises one or more of Polysiloxane, Poly(methyl methacrylate), Poly(N-vinyl acetamide), Polyvinylidene fluoride, and Polystyrene (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Liao and Chang fail to teach a molecular weight of the polymer backbone is less than an entanglement molecular weight of the polymer backbone and the polymer backbone has a glass transition temperature that is less than 30°C.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Liao teaches an integrated circuit package substrate comprising: a core layer 420 [0029]; metal vias 410, 416 110 [0031] electrically coupling a first side of the core layer and a second side of the core layer; and a polymeric layer 108 between the metal vias and the core layer, the polymeric layer comprising polymer molecules with an R1 group, an R2 group, a polymer backbone between the R1 group and R2 group, and an R3 group side-attached to the polymer backbone, wherein the polymeric layer is bonded to the glass substrate via the R1 groups and bonded to the metal via the R2 groups (as shown in figure below. See also figures 10B-10C).
Liao fails to teach the core layer is a glass comprising silicon and oxide
However, Chang teaches that glass comprising silicon and oxide
is one of several materials that is generally-used in the art to form an encapsulant layer (see column 3, lines 17-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang with that of Liao because glass comprising silicon and oxide is one of several materials that is generally-used in the art to form an encapsulant layer
Regarding claim 11, Liao the R3 groups are cross-linked between a polymer backbone of a first polymer molecule and a polymer backbone of a second polymer molecule (see figures 10B-10C).
Regarding claim 12, Liao and Chang fail to teach the polymeric layer is between 3 nm to 20 nm thick.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Liao teaches the R1 groups comprise one or more of an amine, carboxylic acid, epoxide, and alkene (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 14, Liao teaches the R2 groups comprise one or more of an azole family material, imidazole, pyrimidine, indazole, histidine, thiol, phosphate, cyanoacrylate, amides, imides, hydroxyl, amines, phosphines, thiol, thiolate, thioacetate, disulfide, alkyl azide, aryl azide, nitrile, phosphate, silyl, alkyl, phosphonate ester, phosphonamide, sulfonamides, sulfenate, sulfinate, sulfonate, boronic acid, phosphonic acids, carboxylic acids, phosphorous dichloride, alkenes, and an alkyne material (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 15, Liao teaches the R3 groups comprise one or more of an epoxide, alkene, amine, carboxylic acid, zwitterion, azole family material, thiol, phosphate, cyanoacrylate; amides, and imides (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 16, Liao teaches the polymer backbone comprises one or more of Polysiloxane, Poly(methyl methacrylate), Poly(N-vinyl acetamide), Polyvinylidene fluoride, and Polystyrene (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 17, Liao teaches an integrated circuit device comprising the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 10 and an integrated circuit die coupled to the package substrate (figure 26) .
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kang et al, US Patent 9,445,504
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Liao fails to teach plasma treating the surface of the glass substrate before depositing the polymeric layer or treating the surface of the glass substrate with hydrofluoric acid (HF) before depositing the polymeric layer and depositing the metal comprising electrically plating the metal.
However, Kang teaches teach plasma treating the surface of the glass substrate before depositing the polymeric layer or treating the surface of the glass substrate with hydrofluoric acid (HF) before depositing the polymeric layer (column 12, line 64 to column 14, line 2) as a generally-known means to clean the surface of the substrate to prevent contamination of layers that are to be applied to the substrate. Further, Kang teaches depositing the metal comprising electrically plating the metal (column 4, lines 1-3) because electroplating is one of several known means of forming metallic material on a semiconductor substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang with that of Liao because plasma treatment is a generally-known means to clean the surface of the substrate to prevent contamination of layers that are to be applied to the substrate and electroplating is one of several known means of forming metallic material on a semiconductor substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...curing the polymeric film after depositing the metal on the polymeric film...” in combination with the remaining limitations. With regards to claim 20, no prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 18, Examiner maintains the rejection of the claim using the cited prior art of Liao. Liao teaches depositing a polymeric film 108 on a surface of a glass substrate 408 (figure 11). While Liao doesn’t teach directly depositing the polymeric film on the surface of the glass, it is noted that this limitation is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights