Attorney Docket Number: AE3946-US
Filing Date: 12/30/2022
Claimed Priority Date: none
Inventors: Ecton et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 08/26/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of the species comprising the integrated circuit component reading on figure 2 and the transistor structure illustrated in figure 20A, in the reply filed on 08/26/2026, is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that (i) there is no burden on the examiner because independent claim 1 recites components common to each of the species, wherein several dependent claims further recite similar features and (ii) none of the pending claims are directed to a transistor structure, and as such the restriction requirement set forth between them is irrelevant to the limitations of the pending application.
Regarding the first argument, according to the applicants, there are claims reciting limitations of the species that depend from generic claims. Subsequently, the components and scope of independent claim 1 overlap with the species, and therefore, the species are mutually related and the search field for all species is similar. This is found not persuasive. The argument about claims reading on the multiple species depending from the claims reciting similar components is not evidence that the species are not mutually exclusive. That is, although independent claim 1 recites features in common with the species, this does not preclude the species from being mutually exclusive. The examiner can require a restriction in applications where generic claims recite features that are common to a multiplicity of species. In the previous restriction on pages 2-3 and in paragraph 6, the examiner set forth that the application contained multitudinous species, each including mutually exclusive characteristics. These exclusive characteristics make the species patentably distinct from each other. That is, the unpatentability of one of the species would not necessarily imply the unpatentability of the other species. The applicants, on the other hand, have failed to advance reasons leading to the conclusion that the species claimed are considered clearly unpatentable over each other. Accordingly, the prior art applicable to one of the species would not likely be applicable to the other species as the species are likely to raise different prior art issues. Since each of the species belongs to a different subject of inventive effort, they will require different fields of search (e.g., employing different search queries) that would allow separately searching for each of their mutually exclusive characteristics, thus creating a serious burden on the examiner.
Regarding the second argument, species always refer to different embodiments of the invention, and claims themselves are never species (see MPEP § 806.04(e)). Furthermore, it is the practice of the Office to identify such differing embodiments (i.e., species) by figures, and it is only in the specific case where species cannot be conveniently identified that claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted (see MPEP § 809.02(a)(B)). As the applicant provided figures illustrating the mutually exclusive characteristics of the species, the previous restriction requirement was properly composed in accordance with MPEP § 809.02(a)(B). Furthermore, as all facets of the disclosure are integral to the composition of an invention, recitation or lack thereof in the claims cannot render certain features as “irrelevant” to the overall invention. Additionally, the examiner can further require a restriction in applications even in a case where generic or similarly-limited claims recite features that are common to a multiplicity of species. In the previous restriction on pages 2-3, the examiner set forth that the application contained many species, each including mutually exclusive characteristics, including the distinction between, for example, a FinFet tri-gate transistor and a stacked gate-all-around transistor. These exclusive characteristics make the species patentably distinct from each other. That is, the unpatentability of one of the species would not necessarily imply the unpatentability of the other species. The applicants, on the other hand, have failed to advance reasons leading to the conclusion that the species claimed are considered clearly unpatentable over each other. Accordingly, the prior art applicable to one of the species would not likely be applicable to the other species as the species are likely to raise different prior art issues. Since each of the species belongs to a different subject of inventive effort, they will require different fields of search (e.g., employing different search queries) that would allow separately searching for each of their mutually exclusive characteristics, thus creating a serious burden on the examiner.
For all the above reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is, therefore, made final.
The applicant indicated that claims 1-10 and 12-20 read on the elected species. The examiner agrees. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogiamis (US 2022/0399294) in view of INDIUM (Indium Corporation Blogging Team. (2021, November 29). Back to Basics: AU-based Alloys. Indium Corporation.) and POWELL (Powell, J. (2017, November 22). Why Gold-Tin is the best solder alloy. PTI Blog: Automated Wire Bonding, Die Attach, and Contract Assembly Services.).
Regarding claim 18, Dogiamis (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including an integrated circuit package 100 comprising:
one or more dies 114-2 (including 180-1B) comprising a plurality of contact pads (110 in 180-1B) (see, e.g., par.0026/ll.14-15 and 21);
a first dielectric layer 105 comprising a plurality of contact pads 111 (see, e.g., par.0047/ll.18);
an intermediate layer (108 in 180-1A)/107 comprising:
a plurality of conductive pads (110 in 180-1A), wherein individual conductive pads of the plurality of conductive pads connect one of the plurality of contact pads (110 in 180-1B) of the one or more dies 114-2 (including 180-1B) to one of the plurality of contact pads 111 (see, e.g., par.0047/ll.18) of the first dielectric layer 105, wherein the plurality of conductive pads comprise gold alloy (see, e.g., par.0030/ll.10-18); and
a second dielectric layer 107, wherein the second dielectric layer comprises carbon and fluorine (see, e.g., par.0024/ll.10-13)
Dogiamis shows most aspects of the instant invention. Dogiamis further teaches that Dogiamis’s conductive pads may comprise gold alloy, and that Dogiamis’s conductive pads may further comprise a thin cap of solder or conductive material to improve Dogiamis’s bonding and to prevent undesired oxidation (see, e.g., Dogiamis: par.0028/ll.15-21). Dogiamis, however, fails to specify that Dogiamis’s conductive pads may specifically comprise gold and tin. INDIUM, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that gold-based solder alloy components, such as those composed 80% weight gold and 20% weight tin, offer excellent corrosion and oxidation resistance, good thermal and electric transfer, and high longevity (see, e.g., INDIUM: pars.1-3). POWELL, also in the same field of endeavor, corroborates INDIUM, teaching that such gold-tin materials (e.g., 80% weight gold and 20% weight tin) exhibit high thermal conductivity, good resistance to corrosion, and good thermal fatigue properties (see, e.g., POWELL: par.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Dogiamis’s conductive pads comprise such gold and tin (e.g., by having the caps of Dogiamis’s conductive pads comprise gold and tin), as taught by INDIUM and POWELL, so as to employ in Dogiamis’s device a material offering excellent corrosion and oxidation resistance, as already taught to be desired by Dogiamis, as well as good thermal/electric conductivity, fatigue properties, and high longevity.
Regarding claim 19, Dogiamis (see, e.g., pars.0028/ll.15-21 and 0030/ll.10-18) already teaches gold-comprising conductive pads. INDIUM (see, e.g., INDIUM: par.4) and POWELL (see, e.g., POWELL: par.1) further teach the inclusion and benefits of a material comprising at least 75% gold by weight and at least 15% tin by weight (see paragraphs 10-12 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Dogiamis’s plurality of conductive pads comprise at least 75% gold by weight and at least 15% tin by weight, as taught by INDIUM and POWELL. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 10-12 regarding the use of gold and tin in Dogiamis’s conductive pads, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogiamis/INDIUM/POWELL in view of ENDO (Kazuhiko Endo, Toru Tatsumi; Nitrogen doped fluorinated amorphous carbon thin films grown by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition for low dielectric constant interlayer dielectrics. Appl. Phys. Lett. 17 June 1996; 68 (25): 3656–3658.).
Regarding claim 20, Dogiamis/INDIUM/POWELL shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 10-12 above). Dogiamis (see, e.g., par.0024/ll.10-13) further teaches that Dogiamis’s second dielectric layer may comprise fluorine and carbon. Dogiamis, however, fails to specify that Dogiamis’s second dielectric layer comprises nitrogen. Endo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the inclusion of nitrogen in carbon/fluorine dielectric layers can improve the thermal stability of the dielectric layer as well as allow for the controlled modulation of dielectric constants (see, e.g., fig. 1, Table I, and pars.1 and 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include nitrogen in the carbon/fluorine second dielectric layer of Dogiamis, as taught by Endo, so as to allow for the controlled modulation of dielectric constants while simultaneously improving the thermal stability of Dogiamis’s second dielectric layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest an integrated circuit component comprising all of: one or more dies comprising a plurality of contact pads; a redistribution layer comprising a plurality of contact pads; and a release layer comprising: a plurality of conductive pads, wherein individual conductive pads of the plurality of conductive pads connect one of the plurality of contact pads of the one or more dies to one of the plurality of contact pads of the redistribution layer; and a dielectric layer, wherein, below a first threshold temperature, the release layer secures the one or more dies to the redistribution layer, wherein the first threshold temperature is at least 280 °C, wherein, above a second threshold temperature, the release layer is to release the one or more dies from the redistribution layer, wherein the one or more dies are able to withstand a temperature at the second threshold temperature.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest an integrated circuit component comprising all of: one or more dies; a redistribution layer; and a release layer means comprising: means for electrically connecting the one or more dies to the redistribution layer; and means for electrically isolating at least part of the one or more dies from at least part of the redistribution layer, wherein, below a first threshold temperature, the release layer means secures the one or more dies to the redistribution layer, wherein the first threshold temperature is at least 280 °C, wherein, above a second threshold temperature, the release layer means is to release the one or more dies from the redistribution layer, wherein the one or more dies are able to withstand a temperature at the second threshold temperature.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights