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
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/061,237 filed on 12/02/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
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 6, 12 and 15-20 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.
Claims 6 and 12 recites:
that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material.” The term “substantially more” is a term of degree.
The specification provides only a single, isolated reference indicating that “substantially more dopants” may refer to more than ten times (10×) the amount of dopants in the first dielectric material. However, this disclosure is permissive and non-limiting, and the specification does not define the 10× relationship as a required threshold, minimum value, or objective boundary for the claim term.
Because the specification does not consistently define or otherwise limit the scope of “substantially more,” one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty how much greater the dopant concentration in the second dielectric material must be relative to the first dielectric material to satisfy the claim limitation.
Accordingly, claim 12 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the stack" in line 7 and “metal pillars” in “line 8”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It appears that the Applicant intended for “the stack” to be - - a stack- - and “metal pillars” to be - - the plurality of metal pillars- -.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the metal pillars” in line “2”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It appears that the Applicant intended for “the metal pillars” to be - - the plurality of metal pillars- -.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the metal pillars” in line “2”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It appears that the Applicant intended for “the metal pillars” to be - - the plurality of metal pillars- -.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the metal pillars” in line “1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It appears that the Applicant intended for “the metal pillars” to be - - the plurality of metal pillars- -.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ma teaches an integrated circuit package substrate (Fig. 1E) comprising:
a core layer (Fig. 1E: 150 of the substrate 100 and ¶0033) comprising a dielectric material (such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029) and a plurality of metal vias (160 and 165) electrically coupling a first side of the core layer and a second side of the core layer opposite the first side (Fig. 1E), the dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029); and
a plurality of build-up layers (Fig. 1E: 130 and 140) on the core layer (150), the build-up layers (130) comprising metal vias (139a) electrically connected to the metal vias (160 and 165) of the core layer (150).
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches wherein the core layer (Fig. 4F: 410) comprises an adhesion promotion layer (430) between the dielectric material (410) and the metal vias (440).
Regarding claim 4, Ma teaches wherein sidewalls of the metal vias (160, 165) of the core layer (150) are substantially perpendicular to the first side and second side of the core layer (150) (see Fig. 1C or 1D or Fig. 2).
Regarding independent claim 10, Ma teaches an integrated circuit device (Fig. 2: 200) comprising:
an integrated circuit package substrate (Fig. 2: combinations of 100 and 210) comprising:
a core layer (see Fig. 2: 150 with respect to Fig. 1E: 133a of the substrate 100 and ¶0033) comprising a dielectric material (150 such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029) and a plurality of metal vias (160 and 165), the dielectric material (150) comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029); and
a build-up layers (see Fig. 2: 130 with respect to Fig. 1E: 130) on the core layer (150), the build-up layers (130) comprising metal vias (see Fig. 2: 130 with respect to Fig. 1E: 139a) electrically connected to the metal vias (160 and 165) of the core layer (150); and
an integrated circuit die (Fig. 2: 210) coupled to the integrated circuit package substrate (100).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2021/0257309 to Pietambaram et al. (Pietambaram).
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose wherein the adhesion promotion layer comprises Silicon and Oxygen or Silicon and Nitrogen.
Pietambaram discloses wherein the adhesion promotion layer (Fig. 3:304) comprises Silicon and Oxygen or Silicon and Nitrogen (¶0017).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the adhesion promotion layer of Ma with the adhesion promotion layer as taught by Pietambaram to provide good hermeticity to protect conductive structure from corrosion (¶0017).
Claims 5-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2021/0193544 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends. Ma teaches wherein the dielectric material (150) is a first dielectric material and the build-up layers (Fig. 1E: 130 and 140) comprise at least one layer comprising a second dielectric material (133a).
Ma fails to explicitly disclose a second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus.
Lin discloses the build-up layers comprise at least one layer comprising a second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as PSG, ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the at least one build-up layer that comprises a second dielectric material of Ma with the at least one build-up layer as taught by Lin so as to provide good electrical insulation between conductive routing layers in a package substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Ma an integrated circuit device including a first dielectric material and a second dielectric material comprising dopants such as boron and/or phosphorus, as required by claim 6. However, Ma does not explicitly disclose that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material,” as recited in claim 6.
Nevertheless, the relative dopant concentration between dielectric layers is a result-effective variable, because dopant concentration is known in the art to affect dielectric properties such as electrical performance, stability, and process compatibility. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or optimize the dopant concentration in one dielectric layer relative to another to achieve desired material or device characteristics (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In accordance with established case law, where the prior art recognizes a variable as affecting the result, optimization of that variable through routine experimentation is considered obvious, even if the prior art does not disclose the claimed optimum or specific value. The claimed relative concentration therefore represents a difference in degree, not in kind, from the teachings of Ma.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second dielectric material with a higher dopant concentration than the first dielectric material, including a concentration that is substantially greater, as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Ma as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 from which this claim depends.
Ma teaches wherein the plurality of build- up layers (Fig. 1E: 130 and 140) comprise a first build-up layer (130) comprising a second dielectric material (133a) and a second build-up layer (140) comprising a third dielectric material (143a).
Ma fails to explicitly disclose the second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus and the third dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus.
Lin discloses the second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus and the third dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (¶0019). Lin explicitly discloses each of the build-up layers includes dielectric layers and each of the dielectric layers includes material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as phosphosilicate glass (PSG)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the at least one build-up layer that comprises a second dielectric material of Ma with the at least one build-up layer as taught by Lin so as to provide good electrical insulation between conductive routing layers in a package substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 from which this claim depends. Ma teaches third dielectric material (143a) and the second dielectric material (133a).
Ma fails to explicitly disclose wherein a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the third dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material.
Lin discloses the third dielectric material comprising Boron or Phosphorus and second dielectric material comprising Boron or Phosphorus (¶0019). Lin explicitly discloses each of the build-up layers includes dielectric layers and each of the dielectric layers includes material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as phosphosilicate glass (PSG)).
However, Ma as previously modified does not explicitly disclose that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the third dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material,” as recited in claim 8.
Nevertheless, the relative dopant concentration between dielectric layers is a result-effective variable, because dopant concentration is known in the art to affect dielectric properties such as electrical performance, stability, and process compatibility. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or optimize the dopant concentration in one dielectric layer relative to another to achieve desired material or device characteristics (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In accordance with established case law, where the prior art recognizes a variable as affecting the result, optimization of that variable through routine experimentation is considered obvious, even if the prior art does not disclose the claimed optimum or specific value. The claimed relative concentration therefore represents a difference in degree, not in kind, from the teachings of Ma.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second dielectric material with a higher dopant concentration than the first dielectric material, including a concentration that is substantially greater, as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 from which this claim depends. Ma teaches wherein the dielectric material (150) is a first dielectric material.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose at least one build-up layer comprises a second dielectric material comprising silicon, oxygen, and at least one of boron or phosphorus.
Lin discloses at least one build-up layer comprises a second dielectric material comprising silicon, oxygen, and at least one of boron or phosphorus (such as PSG, ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the at least one build-up layer that comprises a second dielectric material of Ma with the at least one build-up layer as taught by Lin so as to provide good electrical insulation between conductive routing layers in a package substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Ma teaches an integrated circuit device including a first dielectric material and a second dielectric material. However, Ma does not explicitly disclose that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material,” as recited in claim 12.
Lin discloses the build-up layers comprise a second dielectric material comprising Boron or Phosphorus (such as PSG, ¶0019).
Ma as previously modified still fails to discloses “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material,” as recited in claim 12.
Nevertheless, the relative dopant concentration between dielectric layers is a result-effective variable, because dopant concentration is known in the art to affect dielectric properties such as electrical performance, stability, and process compatibility. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or optimize the dopant concentration in one dielectric layer relative to another to achieve desired material or device characteristics (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In accordance with established case law, where the prior art recognizes a variable as affecting the result, optimization of that variable through routine experimentation is considered obvious, even if the prior art does not disclose the claimed optimum or specific value. The claimed relative concentration therefore represents a difference in degree, not in kind, from the teachings of Ma.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second dielectric material with a higher dopant concentration than the first dielectric material, including a concentration that is substantially greater, as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Ma teaches wherein the build-up layer (130) comprising the second dielectric material (Fig. 1E: 133a) is adjacent the core layer (150).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2019/0333850 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, from which this claim depends.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose a device comprising circuitry within the dielectric material of the core layer.
Lin discloses a device (Fig. 14: 71) comprising circuitry (Fig. 14: 22) within the dielectric material of the core layer (31, ¶0068).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the core layer of Ma with the circuitry as taught by Lin in order to electrically connect the semiconductor devices to the second routing circuitry (¶0068).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2022/0310529 to Chen et al. (Chen).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 respectively, from which this claim depends.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose a device comprising circuitry within the dielectric material of the core layer.
Chen discloses a device (Fig. 14: 300) comprising circuitry (310) within the dielectric material of the core layer (100, ¶0055).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the core layer of Ma with the circuitry as taught by Chen so that the device can be conveniently connected to the metal layer later for heat dissipation and shielding (¶0078).
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0240392 to Poddar et al. (Poddar) in view of US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma).
Regarding independent claim 15, Poddar disclose a method of forming a substrate core (Fig. 4), comprising:
forming a plurality of metal pillars (210) on a carrier substrate (UBI 243 is presently considered to be the carrier);
depositing a dielectric material (245) adjacent the metal pillars (210),
removing the carrier substrate (243); and
planarizing a top side and a bottom side of the stack (210 and 245) comprising the dielectric material (245) and metal pillars (210) to form substantially parallel planar surfaces (see Fig. 4, step 407), wherein each planar surface is defined at least in part by the dielectric material (245) and the metal pillars (210).
Poddar fails to explicitly disclose the dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus and annealing the dielectric material.
Ma discloses the dielectric material (Fig. 1E: 150) comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (¶0029 such as boro-silicate glass) and annealing (last line of ¶0029) the dielectric material (a glass body as disclosed in ¶0029 comprises the dielectric layer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the substrate core of Poddar with the material of the dielectric layer and the annealing in order to improve strength and/or durability (¶0029).
Regarding claim 16, Poddar as previously modified discloses all of the claim limitation of claim 15 from which this claim depends.
Poddar as previously modified fails to explicitly disclose conformally depositing an adhesion promotion material on the metal pillars before depositing the dielectric material.
Pietambaram discloses conformally depositing an adhesion promotion material (Fig. 3:304) on the metal pillars (404) before depositing the dielectric material (308).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the metal pillars of Poddar with the adhesion promotion layer as taught by Pietambaram to provide good hermeticity to protect conductive structure from corrosion (¶0017).
Regarding claim 17, Poddar discloses wherein depositing the dielectric material (Fig. 4: 245 in step 405) comprises encapsulating the metal pillars (210) with the dielectric material (245).
Regarding claim 19, Poddar discloses wherein planarizing the top side or the bottom side of the stack (210 and 245) comprises performing a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process (¶0024).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poddar in view of Ma and further in view of US Pub # 2021/0257309 to Pietambaram et al. (Pietambaram).
Regarding claim 18, Poddar as previously modified discloses all of the claim limitation of claim 15 from which this claim depends.
Poddar as previously modified fail to disclose wherein at least a portion of the metal pillars are exposed after depositing the dielectric material.
Pietambaram discloses wherein at least a portion of the metal pillars (Fig. 4C: 404) are exposed after depositing the dielectric material (410).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a portion of the metal pillars of Poddar as previously modified to be exposed as taught by Pietambaram in order to electrically couple a conductive pad to the metal pillars and to facilitate metal electroplating to form the various conductive structures (¶0033).
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 20 recites: wherein the dielectric material is a liquid having R- groups within a Silicon-Oxygen backbone dissolved in alcohol.
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2023/0343764 to Chuang et al., US Pub # 2022/0310480 to Bao et al., US Pub # 2020/0176346 to Wu et al., US Pub # 2016/0056057 to Yu et al. and US Pub # 2003/0186494 to Rantala et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896