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
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment of claim 18 in “Claims - 07/24/2026” have been acknowledged.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments “Remarks - 07/24/2026- Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, have been fully considered.
The rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luan (US 20220319963 A1 – hereinafter Luan).
Regarding Claim 1, Luan teaches a package substrate (see the entire document; Fig. 9 in view of Fig. 1A; specifically, ([0045] - [0105]), and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate layer (900 – Fig. 9 – [0105]);
a plurality of traces (plurality of {148a, 148b} – Fig. 9, see the details in Fig. 1A – [0051]) on the substrate layer (900), wherein each of the plurality of traces {148a, 148b} are covered on sidewalls and an entire top surface by a first layer (150 – [0049] – 150 covers the sidewalls and entire top surfaces of {148a, 148b} as seen in Fig. 1A); and
a pad (146 – [0045]) on the substrate layer (900), wherein the pad (146) is covered on sidewalls and an entire top surface by a second layer (144 – that is 144 covers the sidewalls and entire top surface of 146).
Regarding Claim 2, Luan teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the first layer is the same as the second layer (150 is made of LDS – [0049]; 144 is also made of LDS – [0045]).
Regarding Claim 7, Luan teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the first layer (150) and the second layer (144) do not cover the top surface of the substrate layer (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 10, Luan teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of traces have one or more bends or turns (see Fig. 1A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heo et al. (US 20230307340 A1 – hereinafter Heo).
Regarding Claim 11, Heo teaches a device (see the entire document; Fig. 1; specifically, [0024]-[0027], and as cited below), comprising:
a first substrate layer (wc1 – Fig. 1 – [0027]);
a pad (rd2 – [0024]) on the first substrate layer (wc1), wherein the pad (rd2) has sidewall surfaces and a top surface (sidewall surfaces and top surface of rd2 are shown in Fig. 1);
a barrier layer (dv2 – [0027]) on the pad (rd2), wherein the barrier layer (dv2) entirely covers the sidewall surfaces and the top surface of the pad (dv2 entirely covers the sidewall surfaces and the top of rd2);
a second substrate layer (wc2 – [0027]) over the first substrate layer (wc1); and
a via (va2 – [0024]) that passes through the second substrate layer (that is, va2 passes through wc2), wherein the via (va2) is in direct contact with the barrier layer over the top surface of the pad (that is, va2 is in direct contact with dv2 over the top surface of rd2 as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Heo teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the first substrate layer (wc1) and the second substrate layer (wc2) are part of a package substrate (see Fig. 1).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan in view of Zhong et al. (US 20060071340 A1 - hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding Claim 3, Luan teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. But Luan does not expressly disclose wherein the first layer and/or the second layer comprise cobalt.
However, it is well known in the art to form a barrier layer formed of cobalt as is also taught by Zhong (Zhong – [0004] – “Cobalt based barrier layers”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the first layer and/or the second layer comprise cobalt as taught by Zhong into Luan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Zhong structure into Luan structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of preventing diffusion of other materials (Zhong – [0004]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan in view of Zhong and in further view of Adkisson et al. (US 20130015744 A1 - hereinafter Adkisson).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Luan and Zhong teaches claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the first layer and/or the second layer further comprise tungsten and a phosphate.
However, it is well known to form a second barrier layer formed comprising tungsten and a phosphate as is also taught by Adkisson (Adkission – [0025] – “Diffusion barrier 142 may be, e.g., cobalt tungsten phosphate (CoWP)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the first layer and/or the second layer further comprise tungsten and a phosphate as taught by Adkission into the combination of Luan and Zhong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Adkission structure into the combination of Luan and Zhong structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of preventing diffusion of other materials (Adkission – [0025]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan in view of Cheng et al. (US 20210217698 A1 - hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding Claim 5, Luan teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. But Luan does not expressly disclose wherein the first layer and the second layer have a thickness that is less than approximately 1 nm.
However, it is well known in the art to form barriers layers having a thickness that is less than approximately 1 nm as is also taught by Cheng (Cheng – [0049] – “The barrier metal layer can have a thickness of about 10 Angstroms (Å) to about 500 Å.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the first layer and the second layer have a thickness that is less than approximately 1 nm as is taught by Cheng into Luan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Cheng structure into Luan structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of forming barriers layers that comply with very small process technology.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Luan and Cheng teaches wherein the thickness is between approximately 10 Angstroms and approximately 500 Angstroms (Cheng – [0049]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan in view of Heo.
Regarding claim 8, Luan teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. But Luan does not expressly disclose a second substrate layer over the substrate layer; and a via through the second substrate layer, wherein the via lands on, and is in direct contact with, the second layer.
However, it is well known to implement the structure of Luan different ways such that a second substrate layer over the substrate layer; and a via through the second substrate layer, wherein the via lands on, and is in direct contact with, the second layer as is also taught be Heo (Hea teaches in Fig. 1 having a second substrate wc2 over a first substrate wc1 and a via va2 is in contact with wc2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming a second substrate layer over the substrate layer; and a via through the second substrate layer, wherein the via lands on, and is in direct contact with, the second layer as taught by Heo into Luan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Heo structure into Luan structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of routing interconnections based on specific design needs as is well known in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan in view of Sain (US 20210296241 A1 - hereinafter Sain).
Regarding Claim 9, Luan teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. But Luan does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of traces have a line/spacing dimension of approximately 5 µm/5µm or less.
However, it is well known in the art to have a line/spacing dimension of approximately 5 µm/5µm or less as is also taught by Sain (Sain – [0046] – “Similarly, individual traces of the HDP routing 745 may have a trace spacing TS. The trace spacing TS may also be on the order of approximately 5 microns or less”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the plurality of traces have a line/spacing dimension of approximately 5 µm/5µm or less as taught by Sain into Luan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Sain structure into Luan structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of having metal lines/traces compliant to a process technology design rules.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Zhong.
Regarding Claim 12, Heo teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. But Luan does not expressly disclose wherein the barrier layer is electrically conductive.
However, it is well known in the art to form a barrier layer that is electrically conductive as is also taught by Zhong (Zhong – [0004] – “Cobalt based barrier layers” – since cobalt is conductive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the barrier layer is electrically conductive as taught by Zhong into Heo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Zhong structure into Heo structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of proper protection against diffusion of other materials.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Heo and Zhong teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the barrier layer comprises cobalt (Zhong – [0004]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Zhong and in further view of Adkisson.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Heo and Zhong teaches claim 13 from which claim 14 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the first layer and/or the second layer further comprise tungsten and a phosphate.
However, it is well known to form a second barrier layer formed comprising tungsten and a phosphate as is also taught by Adkisson (Adkission – [0025] – “Diffusion barrier 142 may be, e.g., cobalt tungsten phosphate (CoWP)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the first layer and/or the second layer further comprise tungsten and a phosphate as taught by Adkission into the combination of Heo and Zhong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Adkission structure into the combination of Heo and Zhong structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of preventing diffusion of other materials (Adkission – [0025]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Cheng.
Regarding Claim 15, Heo teaches claim 11 from which claim 15 depends. But Luan does not expressly disclose wherein the first layer and the second layer have a thickness that is less than approximately 1 nm.
However, it is well known in the art to form barriers layers having a thickness that is less than approximately 1 nm as is also taught by Cheng (Cheng – [0049] – “The barrier metal layer can have a thickness of about 10 Angstroms (Å) to about 500 Å.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the first layer and the second layer have a thickness that is less than approximately 1 nm as is taught by Cheng into Heo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Cheng structure into Heo structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of forming barriers layers that comply with very small process technology.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Nagata (US 20230283042 A1 – hereinafter Nagata).
Regarding Claim 17, Heo teaches claim 11 from which claim 15 depends. But Luan does not expressly disclose wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are part of a semiconductor die.
However, it is well known in the art to have wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are part of a semiconductor die as is also taught by Nagata (Nagata – Fig. 3 teaches substrate 21 and substrate 6 see also [0072], [0076] which are part of LDD chip 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate layer are part of a semiconductor die as is taught by Nagata into Heo.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Nagata structure into Heo structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of forming different layers in a processing technology.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 18-20 are allowed over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 18, the reference(s) of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge do(es) not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation).
The claim 18 is amended. The most relevant prior art reference(s) (US 20230307340 A1 to Heo, US 20060071340 A1 to Zhong) substantially teach(es) some of limitations in claim 1, but not the limitations of “a pad covered on sidewalls and an entire top surface by the barrier layer that comprises cobalt” as recited in claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 19-20, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights