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 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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further it is unclear where the second layer is located with respect to the package substrate.
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) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2022/0210925) in view of May et al. (US 2020/0118917).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses, as shown in Figures 1-12, a package substrate comprising:
a first layer (110);
a second layer (120) over the first layer, wherein the second layer comprises a dielectric material; and
fillers (125) within the second layer, wherein the fillers have a volume fraction that is less than approximately 0.2 [0031].
Yang does not disclose the dielectric material including sulfur. However, May et al. discloses a dielectric material (150) including sulfur (the crosslink (9) has S, (10) has HS, and (11) HS and SH). Note Figures 1A-2C and [0044] of May et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the dielectric material of Yang including sulfur, such as taught by May et al. in order to further improve the adhesion between layers.
Regarding claim 2, Yang and May et al. disclose the volume fraction is less than approximately 0.1 [0031].
Regarding claim 3, Yang and May et al. do not disclose the claimed volume fraction. However, the selection of these parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, speed, molar fraction, depth, thickness, volume fraction, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, volume fraction, etc., or in combination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where 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 Alter 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding to claims 4-7, Yang and May et al. disclose all of the claimed limitations except material of the fillers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the fillers of Yang and May et al. having the materials as that claimed by Applicant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Yang and May et al. discloses the fillers have a length that is approximately 10nm or greater [0031]. Yang and May et al. do not disclose the claimed thickness of the fillers. However, the selection of these parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, speed, molar fraction, depth, thickness, volume fraction, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, volume fraction, etc., or in combination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where 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 Alter 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claim 10, Yang and May et al. disclose the substrate further comprising: a via (150) through the second layer, wherein the via comprises an electrically conductive material [0049].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2022/0210925) in view of May et al. (US 2020/0118917) and further in view of Shin (US 2022/0183155).
Yang and May et al. disclose the claimed invention including the package substrate as explained in the above rejection. Yang and May et al. do not disclose the dielectric material comprises a photoimageable dielectric (PID) material. However, Shin discloses a package substrate having buildup layers (102) comprising a photoimageable dielectric (PID). Note Figures 3-7 and [0037], [0043], [0064] of Shin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the dielectric layer of Yang comprising PID, such as taught by Shin in order to easily form a fine pattern.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2022/0210925) in view of Shin (US 2022/0183155).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses, as shown in Figures 1-12, a package substrate comprising:
a core (CL); and
buildup layers (UB,LB) over and under the core, wherein the buildup layers comprise:
a dielectric layer (120,220) with two dimensional (2D) filler particles (125, [0031]) that have a volume fraction that is approximately 0.1 or less [0031].
Yang does not disclose the dielectric layer is a photoimageable dielectric (PID). However, Shin discloses a package substrate having buildup layers (102) comprising a photoimageable dielectric (PID). Note Figures 3-7 and [0037], [0043], [0064] of Shin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to form the dielectric layer of Yang comprising PID, such as taught by Shin in order to easily form a fine pattern.
Regarding to claims 12-15 and 19, Yang and Shin disclose all of the claimed limitations except material of the fillers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the fillers of Yang and Shin having the materials as that claimed by Applicant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 16, Yang and Shin disclose the package substate further comprising electrically conductive (135,150) routing through the buildup layers.
Regarding claim 17, Yang and Shin disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the second layer is approximately 25pm/K or less [0049].
Regarding claim 18, Yang discloses, as shown in Figures, a package substrate comprising:
a dielectric layer (120,220) that has two dimensional (2D) filler particles (125, [0031]) that have a volume fraction that is approximately 0.1 or less [0031];
a die coupled to the package substrate.
Yang does not disclose the package substrate integrated with a board (main board 1010) to form an electronic system (1000), and the dielectric layer is a photoimageable dielectric (PID). However, Shin discloses a package substrate (100A-100D) integrated with a board to form an electronic system, and the dielectric layer (100,101,102) comprising a photoimageable dielectric (PID). Note Figures 1-7 and [0037], [0043], [0064] of Shin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to integrate the package substrate of Yang with the board and to form dielectric layer of Yang comprising PID, such as taught by Shin in order to perform the desired function and to easily form a fine pattern.
Regarding claim 20, Yang and Shin disclose the electronic system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile [0031].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am - 5pm.
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, JACOB CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/HUNG K VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights