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 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.
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marin (US 20200083164 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marin discloses a package substrate (Fig. 3F, 300), comprising: a layer (302); a film (304) over the layer, wherein the film is an inorganic material (Para. 64 "the dielectrics 302 and 304 may be an ABF", where ABF is known to be a composite material which is at least partially inorganic); a plurality of electrically conductive traces (comprises rightmost 321 and 340 for example) over the film; and a seed layer (seed layer 305) between the plurality of electrically conductive traces and the film, wherein edges of the seed layer are substantially aligned with edges of the plurality of electrically conductive traces (Shown in Fig. 3F).
Regarding claim 6, Marin discloses wherein widths of the plurality of electrically conductive traces are approximately 5 µm or less (Para. 68 "the via pads 321 may have a diameter of approximately between 5 μm to 50 μm").
Regarding claim 7, Marin discloses wherein widths of the plurality of electrically conductive traces are approximately 5 µm or less (Para. 68 "the via pads 321 may have a diameter of approximately between 5 μm to 50 μm").
Regarding claim 9, Marin discloses further comprising a via (comprises leftmost 321 and 340) in the layer, wherein the via passes through the film (Shown in Fig. 3F).
Regarding claim 10, Marin discloses wherein the via is lined by the seed layer (Shown in Fig. 3F).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (US 20200083164 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Marin discloses wherein the film has a thickness between 5 µm and 5000 µm (Para. 68 "the vias 340 may have a depth (or thickness) of approximately between 5 μm to 5000 μm", where the vias 340 are shown to penetrate the layer 304, therefore 304 also has a thickness within 5 µm and 5000 µm). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Marin such that the film would be up to approximately 3 µm thick in order to tune the layer to a thickness providing sufficient protection/isolation of the underlying layers while still optimizing the Z height of the device. Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Marin discloses wherein the film is between 5 µm and 5000 µm (Para. 68 "the vias 340 may have a depth (or thickness) of approximately between 5 μm to 5000 μm", where the vias 340 are shown to penetrate the layer 304, therefore 304 also has a thickness within 5 µm and 5000 µm). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Marin such that the film would be between approximately 100 nm and approximately 1 µm thick in order to tune the layer to a thickness providing sufficient protection/isolation of the underlying layers while still optimizing the Z height of the device. Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (US 20200083164 A1) in view of Shih (US 20210202412 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Marin discloses the package substrate of claim 1. However, Marin does not disclose wherein the film comprises oxygen and silicon.
On the other hand, Shih discloses wherein the film comprises oxygen and silicon (Fig. 1A, para. 23 "The dielectric layer 101 may include… polyimide… SiO2… or other suitable materials"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Marin according to the teachings of Shih such that the ABF film of Marin would instead be made of SiO2 and therefore comprise oxygen and silicon, in order to maintain low manufacturing costs by choosing materials that are extremely common in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (US 20200083164 A1) in view of Hoi (US 20170117180 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Marin discloses the package substrate of claim 1. However, Marin does not disclose wherein the film comprises carbon.
On the other hand, Hoi discloses wherein the film comprises carbon (Fig. 2A, dielectric layers 202 and 206; para. 19 "the dielectric materials may comprise…. carbon-doped dielectric materials (such as carbon-doped silicon oxide (SiOC)"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Marin according to the teachings of Hoi such that the ABF film of Marin would instead be made of SiOC and therefore comprise carbon, in order to maintain low manufacturing costs by choosing materials that are extremely common in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marin (US 20200083164 A1) in view of Mcknight (US 20220115319 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Marin discloses the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the film is an inorganic film. However, Marin does not disclose wherein the film is a reflective inorganic film.
On the other hand, Mcknight discloses wherein the film is a reflective inorganic film (Fig. 7, mask; para. 78 "The masking layer is selected to have a low optical absorption (high reflectivity) over a range of wavelengths to be used for laser drilling"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Marin according to the teachings of Mcknight such that the inorganic film of Marin would be reflective, in order to protect the underlying layers from damage during laser etching.
Claims 11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 20210202412 A1) in view of Lu (US 20240306295 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Lu discloses a package substrate (Fig. 1, 1), comprising: a first layer (5); a first pad on the first layer (551b); a second layer (12) over the first layer and the pad (Shown in Fig. 1); a film over the second layer (2), a second pad over the film; and a via through the film and the second layer to electrically couple the first pad to the second pad (see attached figure). However, Lu does not disclose wherein the film comprises an inorganic material.
On the other hand, Shih discloses wherein the film comprises an inorganic material (Fig. 1A, para. 23 "The dielectric layer 101 may include… polyimide… SiO2… or other suitable materials"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lu according to the teachings of Shih such that the polyimide inorganic film of Lu would instead comprise SiO2 and therefore comprise an inorganic material, in order to in order to maintain low manufacturing costs by choosing materials that are extremely common in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Lu discloses further comprising: a seed layer lining the via (Fig. 1 shows seed layer 283 lining the via).
Regarding claim 14, Lu discloses wherein the seed layer contacts a sidewall of the second layer, a sidewall of the film, and a top surface of the film (Fig. 1 shows seed layer 283 contacting the inner sidewalls of layer 2 within the via, inner sidewalls of layer 12 within the via, and portion 243 of the seed layer contacting the top surface of 12; para. 57 “each inner conductive via 25 may include the seed layer 243 and the conductive material 244 disposed on the seed layer 243”). Furthermore, it is proper to include layers 243 as part of the seed layer 283 discussed in claim 13 because “it is well settled that the term ‘a' or ‘an' ordinarily means ‘one or more' .” Tate Access Floors, Inc., and Tate Access Floors Leasing, Inc., v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc., 279 F.3d 1357; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1924; 61 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1647 ((citing Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess Techs., Inc, 222 F.3d 958, 966 n.4, 55 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1513, 1518 [**32] (citing Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977, 52 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1109, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1999): “As we have previously explained, it is generally accepted in patent parlance that ‘a' or ‘an' can mean ‘one or more' .")). And, “This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a' or ‘an' in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more' in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.' Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a' receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” (Citations omitted). Scanner Technologies v./COS Vision Systems, 365 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 16, Lu discloses further comprising: a plurality of conductive traces over the film (Fig. 1, 28), wherein the plurality of traces have widths up to approximately 3 µm and a spacing up to approximately 3 µm (Fig. 57 "an L/S… of the outer circuit layer 28 may be… less than or equal to 3 µm/3 µm"; paragraph 55 explains that L/S denotes line width/line space).
Regarding claim 17, Shih discloses wherein the film comprises oxygen and silicon, or the film comprises carbon (para. 23 "The dielectric layer 101 may include... SiO2").
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20240306295 A1) in view of Shih (US 20210202412 A1) as applied to claims 11, 13-14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Marin (US 20200083164 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lu in view of Shih discloses the package substrate of claim 11. However, Lu in view of Shih does not disclose wherein the via has a width that is approximately 5 µm or less.
On the other hand, Marin discloses wherein the via has a width that is approximately 5 µm or less (Para. 68 "the via pads 321 may have a diameter of approximately between 5 μm to 50 μm"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lu in view of Shih according to the teachings of Marin such that the via would have a width that is approximately 5 µm or less, in order to provide pads large enough to make reliable electrical contact with the corresponding vias while still being small enough to be effectively isolated from the adjacent pads.
Regarding claim 15, Lu in view of Shih discloses the package substrate of claim 11. However, Lu in view of Shih does not disclose wherein the film has a thickness of approximately 3 µm or less.
On the other hand, Marin discloses wherein the film has a thickness between 5 µm and 5000 µm (Para. 68 "the vias 340 may have a depth (or thickness) of approximately between 5 μm to 5000 μm", where the vias 340 are shown to penetrate the layer 304, therefore 304 also has a thickness within 5 µm and 5000 µm). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Marin such that the film would be up to approximately 3 µm thick in order to tune the layer to a thickness providing sufficient protection/isolation of the underlying layers while still optimizing the Z height of the device. Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20240306295 A1) in view of Shih (US 20210202412 A1) and Marin (US 20200083164 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Lu discloses a package substrate (Fig. 15A, 1m) wherein the package substrate comprises: a first layer (lowermost 50); a first routing layer (uppermost 50) on the first layer; a second layer (12) over the first layer; a film (2) over the second layer (shown); and a second routing layer (layer of solder bumps coupling die 40 to the substrate) over the film; and a die (40) coupled to the package substrate (Shown). However, Lu does not disclose a computing system comprising a board with the package substrate coupled thereto, or the film comprising an inorganic material.
On the other hand, Shih discloses wherein the film comprises an inorganic material (Fig. 1A, para. 23 "The dielectric layer 101 may include… polyimide… SiO2… or other suitable materials"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lu according to the teachings of Shih such that the polyimide inorganic film of Lu would instead comprise SiO2 and therefore comprise an inorganic material, in order to in order to maintain low manufacturing costs by choosing materials that are extremely common in the art.
Lu in view of Shih still do not disclose a computing system comprising a board with the package substrate coupled thereto. On the other hand, Marin discloses a computing system (Fig. 5, para. 19 "The technologies described herein may be implemented in…. Cell phones,… desktop computers,… tablet personal computers") comprising a package substrate (Fig. 3F, 300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Lu in view of Shih according to the teachings of Marin such that a computing system would comprise the package substrate of Lu in view of Shih coupled to the board in order to allow the device of Lu in view of Shih to be integrated into a larger system such as personal computer, cell phone, or tablet.
Regarding claim 19, Marin discloses wherein the film has a thickness between 5 µm and 5000 µm (Para. 68 "the vias 340 may have a depth (or thickness) of approximately between 5 μm to 5000 μm", where the vias 340 are shown to penetrate the layer 304, therefore 304 also has a thickness within 5 µm and 5000 µm). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Marin such that the film would be up to approximately 3 µm thick in order to tune the layer to a thickness providing sufficient protection/isolation of the underlying layers while still optimizing the Z height of the device. Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Marin discloses wherein the computing system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile (Fig. 5, para. 19 "The technologies described herein may be implemented in…. Cell phones,… desktop computers,… tablet personal computers").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights