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 Objections
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the substrate” in line 2 should be --the package substrate-- for antecedent purposes. The limitation “an IC die” in line 4 should be --the IC die-- to be consistent with claim 1 as well as for antecedent purposes.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the substrate” in line 1 should be --the package substrate-- for antecedent purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the filler material has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) below a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin” is indefinite. Since a glass transition temperature of the polymer resin is not defined or provided, it is not known whether the claim limitation requires an actual temperature. Since an actual glass transition temperature of a polymer resin will also vary, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claims are not clearly set forth.
Regarding claims 2-10, the claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859).
Regarding claims 1-2, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:
a package substrate [132];
a dielectric material [100] over at least a first side of the package substrate; and
a metallization level [142,146,136] embedded within the dielectric material, the metallization level to electrically couple with an IC die [124] affixed to the package substrate, wherein the dielectric material comprises a filler material [118] within a polymer resin [100/114] [Para.18], wherein the filler material [118] has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) below a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin [Para.11];
wherein the polymer resin has a coefficient of thermal expansion less than 10 ppm/K below Tg [Para.16];
Regarding claims 4-6, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device
wherein the filler material [118] comprises a transition metal phosphate [Para.11];
wherein the transition metal phosphate comprises a chalcogen [Oxygen] [Para.11];
wherein the transition metal phosphate comprises zirconium [Para.11].
Regarding claims 11-12, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:
a package substrate [132];
a dielectric material [100] over at least a first side of the package substrate;
an IC die [124]; and
a metallization level [142,146,136] embedded within the dielectric material, the metallization level electrically coupling the IC die to the package substrate, wherein the dielectric material comprises a filler material [118] within a polymer resin [114] [Paras.9,17], and wherein the filler material comprises a transition metal [Para.11];
wherein the transition metal comprises zirconium and the filler material further comprises phosphorus [Para.11].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0380334) [Hereafter “Hu”].
Regarding claim 11, Hu [Figs.11-18] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:
a package substrate [42] [Fig.18];
a dielectric material [14] over at least a first side of the package substrate;
an IC die [20]; and
a metallization level [12/22] embedded within the dielectric material, the metallization level electrically coupling the IC die to the package substrate, wherein the dielectric material comprises a filler material [18] within a polymer resin [16] [Para.26], and wherein the filler material comprises a transition metal [Paras.32,35].
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0380334) [Hereafter “Hu”] in view of He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859).
Regarding claim 1, Hu [Figs.11-18] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:
a package substrate [42] [Fig.18];
a dielectric material [14/16] over at least a first side of the package substrate; and
a metallization level [62] [12/22] embedded within the dielectric material, the metallization level to electrically couple with an IC die [20] affixed to the package substrate, wherein the dielectric material comprises a filler material [18] within a polymer resin [16] [Para.26].
Hu [Para.32] discloses filler material [18] comprises a metal-based material including zirconium and zirconium alloys, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filler material has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) below a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin. However, He [Para.11] discloses an IC device wherein the filler material [118] has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) below a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin. Both Hu and He teach the addition of filler material within a metallization layer to control its CTE to improve the mechanical reliability of the IC device package, it would have been obvious combine Hu and He to provide wherein the filler material has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) below a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin, 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) 3, 7-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859).
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 of a transition metal. 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 claim 7, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device wherein the filler material [118] comprises a compound of a transition metal [Para.11] and may comprise 10% to 95% of the dielectric material [100] [Para.17], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filler material comprises particles having a diameter less than 5 µm and wherein the dielectric material comprises no more than 65 wt% of the filler material. However, determining the required particle size and 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 filler material comprises particles having a diameter less than 5 µm and 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).
Regarding claims 8-9, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device wherein the resin [114] comprises an epoxy resin [Para.17], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polymer resin comprises no more than 50 wt% epoxy; and wherein the polymer resin comprises at least 10 wt% polyimide. However, 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 comprises no more than 50 wt% epoxy; and wherein the polymer resin 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).
Regarding claim 10, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device wherein:
the (package) substrate [132] may comprise an inorganic material [Para.19] and wherein the dielectric material [100] is in direct contact with a surface of the (package) substrate; and
(the) IC die [124] is electrically coupled to the metallization level [136,146,142].
He fails to explicitly disclose the (package) substrate is predominantly a glass. However, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the (package) substrate is predominantly a glass, 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 13-15, He [Fig.1] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device
wherein:
the dielectric material comprises no more than 65 wt% of the filler material; and
the polymer resin comprises no more than 50 wt% epoxy [Discussed above in Claims 7-9];
wherein the polymer resin comprises at least 10 wt% polyimide [Discussed above in Claims 7-9];
wherein the (package) substrate is predominantly a glass and wherein the dielectric material is in direct contact with a surface of the glass [Discussed above in Claim 10].
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0380334) [Hereafter “Hu”].
Regarding claim 15, Hu [Figs.11-18] discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device comprising
the (package) substrate [42] wherein the dielectric material [14] is in direct contact with a surface of the (package) substrate [Fig.18].
Hu fails to explicitly disclose the (package) substrate is predominantly a glass. However, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the (package) substrate is predominantly a glass, 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 16-17, Hu [Figs.13-14] discloses a plurality of dielectric material layers [14/12], but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein:
the dielectric material is a first dielectric material and the filler is a first filler;
the IC device further comprises a second dielectric material on a side of the first dielectric material opposite the substrate; and
the first filler is absent from the second dielectric material;
wherein:
the second dielectric material comprises a second filler of a different composition than the first filler;
the polymer resin is a first polymer resin; and
the second dielectric material comprises a second polymer resin of a different composition than the first polymer resin.
However, Hu [Para.48] [Figs.13-14] discloses and makes obvious the IC device further comprises additional dielectric material layers [14/12] each may contain different materials. Hu discloses the filler [18] and dielectric [16] may comprise various materials and their combinations. It would be obvious to provide the second dielectric material comprising different filler material and different resin composition as claimed, 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 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0380334) [Hereafter “Hu”] in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0210397) [Hereafter “Kang].
Regarding claim 18, Hu [Figs.11-18] discloses a system comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) device [10], the IC device comprising:
a package substrate [42];
a dielectric material [14/22] over at least a first side of the package substrate;
an IC die [20]; and
a metallization level [34] embedded within the dielectric material, the metallization level electrically coupling the IC die to the package substrate, wherein the dielectric material comprises a filler material [18] within a polymer resin [16] [Para.26], and wherein and comprises a transition metal [Paras.32,35].
Hu fails to explicitly disclose the system comprises a host component to which the IC device is attached; and fails to explicitly disclose the filler material is polycrystalline.
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).
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 claim 20, Hu 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).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0380334) [Hereafter “Hu”] in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0210397) [Hereafter “Kang], as applied above and further in view of He (U.S. Pub. 2004/0188859).
Regarding claim 19, Hu and Kang fail to explicitly disclose the system wherein the filler material has a negative coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) over a temperature range comprising 180 °C and 250°C. However, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
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