CTFR 18/061,126 CTFR 81546 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 5-7, 9-13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arana et al, US Patent 7,402,515 (as cited in previous Office Action) in view of Sugahara et al, US Patent 5,989,998 (newly submitted) . PNG media_image1.png 422 942 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Arana teaches an apparatus comprising: a substrate 210 comprising Silicon ( column 2, line 13 ); metal pillars 280 on a first side of the substrate; a first dielectric polymeric layer ( as labeled in figure above ) conformally on between the substrate and the metal pillars; and a dielectric layer 240 on the polymeric layer; and a second dielectric polymeric layer ( as labeled in figure above ) between the metal pillars and the dielectric layer ( figure 2L ). Arana fails to teach the substrate comprises oxygen. However, Sugahara teaches the substrate comprises oxygen (column 1, lines 8-11) as one of several conventional materials that are conventionally-used for a base layer. 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 Sugahara with that of Arana because silicon oxide is one of several conventional materials that are conventionally-used for a base layer. Regarding claim 2, Arana teaches the polymeric layer comprises one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Poly(Glycidyl Methacrylate) (PGMA), poly (1,3,5-trimethyl-1,3,5-trivinyl cyclotrisiloxane) (pV3D3), poly(1,3,5,7-tetravinyl-1,3,5,7-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane) (pV4D4), and poly(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyl acrylate (pPFDA) ( PTFE, column 4, line 63 ) Regarding claims 5, Arana teaches the second polymeric layer comprises one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Poly(Glycidyl Methacrylate) (PGMA), poly (1,3,5-trimethyl-1,3,5-trivinyl cyclotrisiloxane) (pV3D3), poly(1,3,5,7-tetravinyl- 1,3,5,7-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane) (pV4D4), and poly(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyl acrylate (pPFDA) ( PTFE, column 4, line 63 ) Regarding claim 6, Arana teaches an integrated circuit package substrate comprising: a core layer 210 comprising Silicon ( column 2, line 13 ); metal vias 280 electrically coupling a first side of the core layer and a second side of the core layer; and a first dielectric polymeric layer ( as labeled in figure above ) between the metal vias and the core layer; a build-up layer 240 on the core layer comprising a dielectric material; and a second dielectric polymeric layer ( as labeled in figure above ) between the dielectric material and one or more of the metal via in the core layer ( figure 2L ). Arana fails to teach the substrate comprises oxygen. However, Sugahara teaches the substrate comprises oxygen (column 1, lines 8-11) as one of several conventional materials that are conventionally-used for a base layer. 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 Sugahara with that of Arana because silicon oxide is one of several conventional materials that are conventionally-used for a base layer. Regarding claim 7, Arana teaches the polymeric layer comprises one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Poly(Glycidyl Methacrylate) (PGMA), poly (1,3,5-trimethyl-1,3,5-trivinyl cyclotrisiloxane) (pV3D3), poly(1,3,5,7-tetravinyl-1,3,5,7-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane) (pV4D4), and poly(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyl acrylate (pPFDA) ( PTFE, column 4, line 63 ) Regarding claim 9, Arana teaches wherein the second polymeric layer comprises one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Poly(Glycidyl Methacrylate) (PGMA), poly (1,3,5-trimethyl-1,3,5-trivinyl cyclotrisiloxane) (pV3D3), poly(1,3,5,7-tetravinyl-1,3,5,7-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane) (pV4D4), and poly(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyl acrylate (pPFDA) ( PTFE, column 4, line 63 ) Regarding claims 10-11, Arana in view of Sugahara teaches an integrated circuit device comprising the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 6 and an integrated circuit die coupled to the package substrate and computing system comprising a main circuit board and the integrated circuit device of claim 10 ( figures 3-4 ). Regarding claim 12, Arana teaches a method comprising: forming a plurality of holes 230 in a substrate comprising Silicon ( figure 2B and column 2, line 13 ); depositing a dielectric polymer material 250 on the sidewalls of the holes ( figure 2E ); and depositing a metal 280 in the holes ( figure 2L ); depositing a dielectric polymer material 250 on the metal ( figure 2E ); and depositing a dielectric 240 on the dielectric polymer material (figure 2C). Arana fails to teach the substrate comprises oxygen. However, Sugahara teaches the substrate comprises oxygen (column 1, lines 8-11) as one of several conventional materials that are conventionally-used for a base layer. 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 Sugahara with that of Arana because silicon oxide is one of several conventional materials that are conventionally-used for a base layer. Regarding claim 13, Arana teaches the polymer material comprises one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Poly(Glycidyl Methacrylate) (PGMA), poly (1,3,5-trimethyl-1,3,5-trivinyl cyclotrisiloxane) (pV3D3), poly(1,3,5,7-tetravinyl-1,3,5,7-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane) (pV4D4), and poly(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyl acrylate (pPFDA) ( PTFE, column 4, line 63 ). Regarding claim 18, Arana teaches depositing a polymer material 250 on a surface of the substrate; and depositing a metal 280 on the polymer layer material on the surface of the substrate ( figure 2L ). Regarding claim 19, Arana teaches the polymer material on the surface of the substrate comprises one or more of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Poly(Glycidyl Methacrylate) (PGMA), poly (1,3,5-trimethyl-1,3,5-trivinyl cyclotrisiloxane) (pV3D3), poly(1,3,5,7-tetravinyl-1,3,5,7-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane) (pV4D4), and poly(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyl acrylate (pPFDA) ( PTFE, column 4, line 63 ) 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arana and Sugahara as applied to claim s 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al, US Patent Application Publication 2009/0087562 (as cited in previous Office Action) . Regarding clams 14 and 15, Arana and Sugahara fail to teach the polymer material is deposited using vacuum-based vapor deposition process, wherein the vacuum-based vapor deposition process is an initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process. However, Lee teaches the polymer material is deposited using vacuum-based vapor deposition process, wherein the vacuum-based vapor deposition process is an initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process [0032] as an alternative, yet conventionally-known means of depositing a polymer material. 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 Lee with that of Arana and Sugahara because initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process as an alternative, yet conventionally-known means of depositing a polymer material . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arana and Sugahara as applied to claim s 6 and 12 above, and further in view of, Lin et al US Patent 8,503,186 (as cited in previous Office Action) . Regarding claim 16-17, Arana and Sugahara fail to teach curing the polymer material, wherein curing the polymer material comprising heating the polymer material between 100-200°C. Lin teaches curing the polymer material, wherein curing the polymer material comprising heating the polymer material between 100-200°C ( column 81, lines 56-64 ) as an alternative, yet conventionally-known means of depositing a polymer layer for a semiconductor device. 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 Lin with that of Arana and Sugahara because spin coating and curing is an alternative, yet conventionally-known means of depositing a polymer layer for a semiconductor device. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium). Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 3 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 4 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 5 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 6 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 7 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 8 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 9 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/061,126 Page 10 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights