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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 11-18) in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Malm (US 2018/0122990) in view of Oliver (EP 2755605).
With respect to Claim 11, von Malm discloses a method for manufacturing a carrier substrate (Figure 1, 90) that includes a front side (top) and a rear side (bottom), the front side being situated opposite the rear side, the front side representing a structured semiconductor side (Figure 1, 2) including contact areas (Figure 1, 8) , the method comprising the following steps: applying at least one first layer (Figure 1, layers 3 or 5) to the front side using printing technology (paragraphs 29-30), the at least one first layer including a first material which is water-insoluble (nickel, paragraph 30); and curing the at least one first layer using UV radiation or thermally or using sintering (paragraph 30, last 3 lines).
However, von Malm differs from the Claims at hand in that von Malm does not disclose that the carrier substrate is on a semiconductor wafer.
Oliver et al is relied upon to disclose the use of carrier substrates (Figure 1A, 1) on wafers (Figure 1A, 5) , and their benefit in providing support during the manufacture of electronic devices. See Figure 1A and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 1-4 and 48.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to attach a wafer below the carrier substrate of von Malm, for its known benefit in providing support as disclosed by Oliver et al. The use of a known component for its known benefit would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 12, von Malm makes obvious producing , using a laser, n openings of the at least one first layer, which partially exposes the contact areas. See paragraph 9 which discloses lasers to etch openings, and paragraph 45 which discloses forming recess 25.
With respect to Claim 14, von Malm discloses applying a structured planarizing layer (Figure 1, 93) to the front side, the structured planarizing layer filling in recesses of the front side.
With respect to Claim 15, von Malm discloses wherein a media-soluble layer or a thermally soluble layer or a thermally soluble layer or an optically soluble layer is applied directly to areas on the front side. See paragraph 29.
With respect to Claim 16, von Malm makes obvious wherein the application of the at least one first layer takes place repeatedly, the at least one first layer having a layer thickness of at least 5 microns, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See in re Rose, 105 USPQ 327 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, duplication of process steps for its known benefit is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 17, von Malm makes obvious wherein the layer thickness is between 5 and 40 microns, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See in re Rose, 105 USPQ 327 (CCPA 1955)..
With respect to Claim 18, von Malm makes obvious wherein the application of the at least one first layer takes place using inkjet technology or LIFT technology or DLP technology or stereolithography so that the at least one first layer includes a coating layer. See paragraph 30 which discloses inks. Moreover, the Examiner takes Official Notice that inkjet technology is well known in the art, and would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The cited prior art does not disclose or make obvious “wherein the at least one first layer includes a second material, which is applied to the front side above the contact area using printing technology, openings of the at least one first layer, which partially expose the contact areas, being produced by removing the second material”.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “n openings”. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
December 31, 2025
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812