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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated July 13, 2026, in which claims 1-9, 11-12, and 16-18 were amended, claims 10 and 15 were cancelled, and claims 21-22 were added, has been entered.
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, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imayoshi (U.S. Pub. 2018/0166354) in view of He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859).
Regarding claim 1, Imayoshi [Figs.1-2] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:
a package substrate [1] comprising a glass substrate [Para.68] with a first side and a second side, and a through-glass via [3] having a first end on the first side of the glass substrate and a second end on the second side of the glass substrate;
a dielectric material [7] in direct contact with the first side of the glass substrate; and
a metallization level [5] embedded within the dielectric material, the metallization level electrically coupled to the through-glass via [3] and to couple with an IC die [11] assembled with the package substrate, wherein the dielectric material [7] comprises a filler material [Para.110] within a polymer resin system comprising both epoxy and polyimide [Para.110].
Imayoshi [Para.110] discloses the filler may comprise silicon oxide, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filler material comprises a transition metal, phosphorus, and oxygen. However, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device wherein the dielectric material [100] comprises a filler material, and the filler material [118] comprises a transition metal, phosphorus, and oxygen [Para.11]. He [Paras.9-11] makes obvious the filler material may comprise silicon oxide or the negative CTE filler [118] to reduce thermal stress for improved device quality and reliability. Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the claimed filler material, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device wherein the filler material [118] comprises a compound of a transition metal [Para.11], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filler material comprises a polycrystalline compound. However, forming a crystalline form or an amorphous form of a compound is obvious and well-known in semiconductor manufacturing. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the filler material as a polycrystalline compound, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 5-6, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device
wherein the filler material comprises a chalcogen [Oxygen] [Para.11];
wherein the transition metal comprises zirconium [Para.11].
Regarding claim 7, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device wherein the filler material [118] may comprise 10% to 95% of the dielectric material [100] [Para.17], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dielectric material comprises no more than 65 wt% of the filler material. However, determining the appropriate composition by wt% of the filler material to obtain the desired layer CTE is obvious in semiconductor manufacturing and is well within the general knowledge of one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the dielectric material comprises no more than 65 wt% of the filler material, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imayoshi (U.S. Pub. 2018/0166354) in view of He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859), as applied above and further in view of Oka (U.S. Pub. 2014/0175657).
Regarding claims 2 and 8-9, Imayoshi discloses the polymer system comprises epoxy and polyimide resins, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the polymer resin system has an epoxy:polyimide ratio under 5:1;
wherein the polymer resin system comprises no more than 50 wt% epoxy;
wherein the polymer resin system comprises at least 10 wt% polyimide.
However, Oka [Table between Paras.29-30] discloses and makes obvious various compositions of a multicomponent dielectric material depending on the desired material application. Determining the appropriate composition by wt% of the resin polymers to obtain the resin layer with the desired CTE and other qualities is obvious in semiconductor manufacturing and is well within the general knowledge of one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the polymer resin system has an epoxy:polyimide ratio under 5:1; wherein the polymer resin system comprises no more than 50 wt% epoxy; and wherein the polymer resin system comprises at least 10 wt% polyimide, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imayoshi (U.S. Pub. 2018/0166354) in view of He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859), as applied above and further in view of Starkovich (U.S. Pub. 2004/0214377).
Regarding claim 4, He fails to explicitly disclose wherein particles of the filler material have a diameter less than 1 µm. However, Starkovich [Para.33] discloses and makes obvious wherein particles of the filler material have a diameter less than 1 µm to obtain the desired filler volume in the dielectric material, controlling the dielectric material’s thermal expansion characteristics [Starkovich; Abstract]. It would also have been obvious to use provide wherein particles of the filler material have a diameter less than 1 µm, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imayoshi (U.S. Pub. 2018/0166354) in view of He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859), as applied above and further in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0210397) [Hereafter “Kang].
Regarding claim 18, Imayoshi and He disclose the IC device of claim 1 as discussed above. Imayoshi and He fail to explicitly disclose the system comprises a host component (to which the IC device is attached).
However, Kang [Fig.1] discloses a system [100] comprising a host component [101] to which the IC device [110/120] is attached. It would have been obvious to provide a host component to which the IC device is attached, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Imayoshi, He, and Kang fail to explicitly disclose the system further comprising:
a power supply coupled to provide power to the IC die through the host component.
However, it would have been obvious to provide a power supply coupled to provide power to the IC die through the host component, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, He [Fig.1] discloses a system wherein the filler material [118] has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) over a temperature range comprising 180 °C and 250°C [Para.11]. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the filler material [118] has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) over a temperature range comprising 180 °C and 250°C, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14, 16-17, and 22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s amendments to the claims and/or arguments were persuasive.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 21 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: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
wherein the filler material comprises Zr, S, P and O.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejected claims stand rejected and the Action is made Final.
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 BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
