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
Claim 2-4, 12, 13, 15, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-4, 15, and 16, are objected to because they lack a definite article. Where they recite “wherein plurality of connectors” and are missing “said” or “the” before the word “plurality.” Because there is only one “plurality of connectors” in the preceding claim 1, it is still clear as to what plurality of connectors the claims are referring to.
Claims 4 and 16 have a period after the word “and” when nothing should be there.
Claims 12 and 13 are missing a comma between components gallium nitride and aluminum nitride in the claim.
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.
Claim 12-13, and 19-31 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 claims 12 and 13, both claims recite “variants engineered to enhance the quantum conversion process discussed in this invention.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what the claimed subject matter is as to what would be “enhanced.” Furthermore, “discussed in this invention” does not positively recite any claimed subject matter and it is unclear as to how “discussed in this invention” actually limits the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " said second outer surface of said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no preceding interposer. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner will examine the claim as if it said “material” instead of “interposer”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die" in lines 8-9. Because there are multiple circuit dies already introduced it is unclear as to which die the limitation is referring to and as a result there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, in line 12 the claim recites “said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no preceding interposer. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner will examine the claim as if it said “material” instead of “interposer”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said circuit die" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there are multiple circuit dies before the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabir et al. (US 20190267345 A1; Kabir).
Regarding Claim 1, Kabir discloses an improved interposer for connecting an integrated circuit die or multiple dies to a substrate (Fig. 5, or Para. 1, “The present invention relates to an assembly platform for arrangement between an electronic device and a substrate to interconnect the first electronic device and the substrate through the assembly platform”), comprising:
a silicon carbide (SiC) interposer (4) having a first (14) and a second (19) outer surface (Para. 65, Lines 3-5); and
a plurality of connectors (25 – connectors/nanostructures, 12 - Vias in Fig. 1/2a) formed in situ within said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer for connecting the integrated circuit die to the substrate (Para. 34, lines 5-9, where the vias/nanostructures are formed on the assembly substrate) (Para. 69, “On the second side 19 of the interposer substrate 11 there is connection bumps 17 also connected with the vias 12).
Regarding Claim 2, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, and further wherein plurality of connectors are carbon electrical connectors (Para. 69, lines 16-26, where the nanostructures are carbon nanostructures).
Regarding Claim 3, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, and further wherein plurality of connectors are optical wave guide connectors (“The second plurality of nanostructures 25 may also serve as alignment marks or have optical functions”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, and further wherein plurality of connectors are optical wave guide connectors (“The second plurality of nanostructures 25 may also serve as alignment marks or have optical functions”); and
each of said optical wave guide connectors comprising a tunnel formed in said silicon carbide (SiC) by carbon rich tunnel walls (Para. 71, “Furthermore, the second plurality of nanostructures may be grown from a recessed assembly structure [4]’”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, and further wherein at least one of said plurality of connectors formed in situ within said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer is formed at an angle relative to said first outer surface (In Fig. 12 a/b, the vias 12 nanostructure 25 formed in situ on substrate 11 each appear to form a vertical linear path in the figure while the first outer surface of the substrate 14 appears to be horizontal. It would be reasonable to say they form an angle relative to each other, albeit a 90° angle).
Regarding Claim 6, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, and further wherein at least one of said plurality of connectors formed in situ within said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer is an angular monolithic via formed at an angle relative to said first outer surface (Para. 69, “In FIG. 2a there is shown an assembly substrate 11 having a plurality of vias' 12 extending through the assembly substrate 11, from the first side 14 to the second side 19 of the assembly substrate 11. There is also shown a conductor pattern 13 conductively connected to the vias' 12”).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “formed by laser irradiation of said silicon carbide (SiC) to form said carbon electrical connectors” is a process, and the claim is directed to a product. It has been held that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, regardless of how the product is actually made. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein make it clear that it is the final product which must determine patentability in a product-by-process claim, and not the process by which it is made. Further, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in a product-by-process claim or not. As stated in In re Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935) Perdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, App. No. 2014-1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Furthermore, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, and further wherein said plurality of connectors are carbon electrical connectors formed by laser irradiation of said silicon carbide (SiC) to form said carbon electrical connectors (Para 83, “In some implementations, any of the depositing is carried out by a method selected from: evaporating, plating, sputtering, molecular beam epitaxy, pulsed laser depositing, CVD, ALD and spin-coating”).
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “formed by laser irradiation of said silicon carbide (SiC) to form said optical wave guide” is a process, and the claim is directed to a product. It has been held that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, regardless of how the product is actually made. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein make it clear that it is the final product which must determine patentability in a product-by-process claim, and not the process by which it is made. Further, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in a product-by-process claim or not. As stated in In re Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935) Perdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, App. No. 2014-1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Furthermore, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, and further wherein plurality of connectors are optical wave guide connectors formed by laser irradiation of said silicon carbide (SiC) to form said optical wave guide (Para. 71, “The second plurality of nanostructures may be arranged in a regular array to create structures to mimic artificial photonic crystals to function as optical interconnects or wave guides”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, including a recess (12) formed in said first outer surface (Para. 30, “the second plurality of nanostructures may be grown from a recessed assembly structure” and Para. 66, “The conductor pattern 13 is conductively connected to the vias 12 and to nanostructure connection bumps 15 on the first side 14 of the assembly substrate 11”); and
the integrated circuit die (3) disposed in said recess (12) and thermally coupled to said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer for providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die (Fig. 1, shows the IC die 3 coupled to the vias 12 and nanostructures. Para. 71, “for example the second plurality of nanostructures 25 may be configured to dissipate heat from the IC 3 to the assembly substrate 11”).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “by a laser ablating process” is a process, and the claim is directed to a product. It has been held that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, regardless of how the product is actually made. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein make it clear that it is the final product which must determine patentability in a product-by-process claim, and not the process by which it is made. Further, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in a product-by-process claim or not. As stated in In re Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935) Perdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, App. No. 2014-1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Currently, if the prior discloses the same recesses, it doesn’t matter how they were made as long as they can provide the same utility.
Furthermore, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, including a recess (12) formed in said first outer surface (14) by a laser ablating process (as explained above, regardless of if the recess in Kabir was made by a laser ablating process, the recess in Kabir still provides the same claimed utility. No patentable weight was given to the process step of making the recess by way of laser ablating), and
the integrated circuit die (3) disposed in said recess (12) and thermally coupled to said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer for providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die (Fig. 1, shows the IC die 3 coupled to the vias 12 and nanostructures. Para. 71, “for example the second plurality of nanostructures 25 may be configured to dissipate heat from the IC 3 to the assembly substrate 11”).
Regarding Claim 11, Kabir discloses an improved interposer (4) for connecting a silicon integrated circuit die (3) to a substrate, comprising;
a wide bandgap interposer (4) having a first (14) and a second (19) outer surface (Fig. 1, where the interposer 4 has first and second side. Para. 85, “In some implementation, chlorination process is used to derive carbon nanostructures from metal carbide layer e.g. forming carbon nanostructures from TiC, SiC or any other carbide precursors”);
a plurality of connectors (25 – connectors/nanostructures, 12 - Vias in Fig. 1/2a) formed in situ within wide bandgap interposer for connecting the silicon integrated circuit die to the substrate (Para. 34, lines 5-9, where the vias/nanostructures are formed on the assembly substrate) (Para. 69, “On the second side 19 of the interposer substrate 11 there is connection bumps 17 also connected with the vias 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 11, wherein said wide bandgap interposer is selected from the group consisting of silicon carbide (SiC), gallium nitiide (GaN), aluminum nitride (A IN), synthetic diamond, glass and their respective compounds and alloyed variants engineered to enhance the quantum conversion process discussed in this invention (Para. 95).
Regarding Claim 13, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 11, wherein said wide bandgap interposer is a combination compounds selected from the group consisting of silicon carbide (SiC), gallium nitride (GaN) aluminum nitride (A IN). synthetic diamond, glass and their respective compounds and alloyed variants engineered to enhance the quantum conversion process discussed in this invention (Para. 95).
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “formed in said wide bandgap material to form said carbon electrical connectors” is a process, and the claim is directed to a product. It has been held that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, regardless of how the product is actually made. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein make it clear that it is the final product which must determine patentability in a product-by-process claim, and not the process by which it is made. Further, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in a product-by-process claim or not. As stated in In re Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935) Perdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, App. No. 2014-1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Furthermore, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, wherein said plurality of connectors are carbon electrical connectors formed in said wide bandgap material to form said carbon electrical connectors (Para. 69, lines 16-26, where the nanostructures are carbon nanostructures).
Regarding Claim 15, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, wherein plurality of connectors are optical wave guide connectors formed in said wide bandgap material to form said optical wave guide (“The second plurality of nanostructures 25 may also serve as alignment marks or have optical functions”).
Regarding Claim 16, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, wherein plurality of connectors are optical wave guide connectors (“The second plurality of nanostructures 25 may also serve as alignment marks or have optical functions”); and
each of said optical wave guide connectors comprising a tunnel formed in said wide bandgap material by carbon rich tunnel walls (Para. 71, “Furthermore, the second plurality of nanostructures may be grown from a recessed assembly structure [4]’”).
Regarding Claim 17, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, including a recess (12) formed in said Fist outer surface (Para. 30, “the second plurality of nanostructures may be grown from a recessed assembly structure” and Para. 66, “The conductor pattern 13 is conductively connected to the vias 12 and to nanostructure connection bumps 15 on the first side 14 of the assembly substrate 11”); and
the integrated circuit die (3) disposed in said recess (12) and thermally coupled to said wide bandgap material for providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die (Fig. 1, shows the IC die 3 coupled to the vias 12 and nanostructures. Para. 71, “for example the second plurality of nanostructures 25 may be configured to dissipate heat from the IC 3 to the assembly substrate 11”).
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation “by a laser ablating process” is a process, and the claim is directed to a product. It has been held that a product-by-process claim is directed to the product per se, regardless of how the product is actually made. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein make it clear that it is the final product which must determine patentability in a product-by-process claim, and not the process by which it is made. Further, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in a product-by-process claim or not. As stated in In re Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935) Perdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, App. No. 2014-1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Currently, if the prior discloses the same recesses, it doesn’t matter how they were made as long as they can provide the same utility.
Furthermore, Kabir discloses the improved interposer as set forth in claim 1, including a recess (12) formed in said first outer surface (14) by a laser ablating process (as explained above, regardless of if the recess in Kabir was made by a laser ablating process, the recess in Kabir still provides the same claimed utility. No patentable weight was given to the process step of making the recess by way of laser ablating); and
the integrated circuit die (3) disposed in said recess (12) and thermally coupled to said wide bandgap material for providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die (Fig. 1, shows the IC die 3 coupled to the vias 12 and nanostructures. Para. 71, “for example the second plurality of nanostructures 25 may be configured to dissipate heat from the IC 3 to the assembly substrate 11”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kabir discloses an improved packaging device for connecting an integrated circuit die to a circuit board (Fig. 5, or Para. 1, “The present invention relates to an assembly platform for arrangement between an electronic device and a substrate to interconnect the first electronic device and the substrate through the assembly platform”), comprising:
a silicon carbide (SiC) material (4) having a first (14) and a second (19) outer surface (Para. 65, Lines 3-5);
a recess (12) formed in said first outer surface (Para. 30, “the second plurality of nanostructures may be grown from a recessed assembly structure” and Para. 66, “The conductor pattern 13 is conductively connected to the vias 12 and to nanostructure connection bumps 15 on the first side 14 of the assembly substrate 11”);
the integrated circuit die (3) disposed in said recess (12) and thermally coupled to said silicon carbide (SiC) material for providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die (Fig. 1, shows the IC die 3 coupled to the vias 12 and nanostructures. Para. 71, “for example the second plurality of nanostructures 25 may be configured to dissipate heat from the IC 3 to the assembly substrate 11”);
a plurality of connectors (25 – connectors/nanostructures, 12 - Vias in Fig. 1/2a) formed in situ within said silicon carbide (SiC) material for connecting the integrated circuit die to said second outer surface (Para. 34, lines 5-9, where the vias/nanostructures are formed on the assembly substrate) (Para. 69, “On the second side 19 of the interposer substrate 11 there is connection bumps 17 also connected with the vias 12); and
said second outer surface of said silicon carbide (SiC) material (changed to material, see explanation in the 112 rejections section) being directly connected to the circuit board (Fig. 1, where connection bumps 17 on second outer surface 19 are shown to be directly connected to pads 6 on circuit board 2. Para. 66, lines 11-16).
Regarding Claim 20, Kabir discloses an improved packaging device for connecting integrated circuit dies (Fig. 5, or Para. 1, “The present invention relates to an assembly platform for arrangement between an electronic device and a substrate to interconnect the first electronic device and the substrate through the assembly platform”), comprising;
a silicon carbide (SiC) material (4) having a first (14) and a second (19) outer surface (Para. 65, Lines 3-5);
a recess (12) formed in said first outer surface (Para. 30, “the second plurality of nanostructures may be grown from a recessed assembly structure” and Para. 66, “The conductor pattern 13 is conductively connected to the vias 12 and to nanostructure connection bumps 15 on the first side 14 of the assembly substrate 11”);
a first integrated circuit die (3) disposed in said recess (12) and thermally coupled to said silicon carbide (SIC) martial for providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die (Fig. 1, shows the IC die 3 coupled to the vias 12 and nanostructures. Para. 71, “for example the second plurality of nanostructures 25 may be configured to dissipate heat from the IC 3 to the assembly substrate 11”);
a second recess (12) formed in said second outer surface (Fig. 2a, where the vias a formed on the other side);
a second integrated circuit (3) die disposed in said second recess and thermally coupled to said silicon carbide (SiC) material for providing a heat sink for the integrated circuit die (Fig. 5, Where the plurality of dies 3 have some of them disposed on the recesses on the first side 14 and some of the other dies disposed on the other side 19); and
a plurality of connectors (25 – connectors/nanostructures, 12 - Vias in Fig. 1/2a) formed in situ within said silicon carbide (SiC) material for connecting said first and said second integrated circuit die to a third outer surface of said silicon carbide (SiC) interposer (Para. 34, lines 5-9, where the vias/nanostructures are formed on the assembly substrate) (Para. 69, “On the second side 19 of the interposer substrate 11 there is connection bumps 17 also connected with the vias 12).
Regarding Claim 21, Kabir discloses an improved interposer system comprising (Fig. 5, or Para. 1, “The present invention relates to an assembly platform for arrangement between an electronic device and a substrate to interconnect the first electronic device and the substrate through the assembly platform”);
a first silicon carbide (SiC) interposer (4) having a first (14) and a second (19) outer surface with a first and a second recess (plurality of vias 3) defined in said first and second outer surfaces (Para 69);
a first and a second integrated circuit die disposed in said first and second recess and thermally coupled to said first silicon carbide (SiC) interposer for providing a heat sink for said first and second integrated circuit die (Fig. 5, Where the plurality of dies 3 have some of them disposed on the recesses on the first side 14 and some of the other dies disposed on the other side 19);
a second silicon carbide (SiC) interposer having third and a fourth outer surface with a third and a fourth recess defined in said third and a fourth outer surfaces;
a third and a fourth integrated circuit die disposed in said third and a fourth recess and thermally coupled to said second silicon carbide (SiC) interposer for providing a heat sink for said integrated circuit die; and
said first silicon carbide (SiC) interposer being stacked upon or adjacent to said second silicon carbide (SiC) interposer for interconnecting said first through fourth integrated circuit dies (Para. 68, where the same interposer may be stacked, i.e. duplicating all layers, making a second SIC interposer, third and fourth outer surfaces, more dies in said third and fourth surfaces that are thermally coupled to said SIC interposer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J HIBBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/DANIEL J HIBBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights