DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 5/27/26, regarding the rejection over Liao have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The first argument is that O’Sullivan does not teach using pillars. O’Sullivan teaches using FLI’s 525, which allegedly refer to solder bumps or other collapsible bumps, but do not refer to the claimed pillars.
Note that O’Sullivan, as noted in the previous office action, at paragraph 0056 teaches the FLI’s can be solder and also may be studs, pillars, or microbumps. Therefore, O’Sullivan teaches the FLI’s 525 can be pillars.
The next argument is that Lee teaches the pads 27b are coupled together through the decoupling capacitor 22 and not the metallization layer on the active devices 25.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/27/26, with respect to the rejection over Lee have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections over Lee has been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Rejection over Liao et al., 10,283,443
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al., 10,283,443, in view of O’Sullivan et al., US 2022/0310777.
Regarding claim 1, Liao (see marked up figure 1 below) teaches a device, comprising:
a redistribution layer (RDL) substrate 1;
a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor C (column 2, lines 46-49) in the RDL substrate 1 proximate a second surface 2 of the RDL substrate 1;
a first die 103 comprising a metallization layer 5 directly on a surface of the first die 103/D
a first pair of conductive elements 109/109A, each having a first end directly coupled through the metallization layer 5 directly on the surface of the first die 103 and each having a second end coupled to the second surface 2 of the RDL substrate 1, opposite a first surface 3 of the RDL substrate 1, in which a conductive pillar 109 of the first pair of conductive pillars 109/109A having the first end directly coupled to the metallization layer 105 on the surface of the die 103 and the second end directly coupled to a plate 110 of the MIM capacitor C at the second surface 2 of the RDL substrate 1; and
a laminate substrate (column 10, lines 13-18), comprising a metallization layer (column 10, lines 13-18 states electrically couple therefore a metallization layer mis present) on a first surface of the laminate substrate; and
a second pair of conductive elements 118 coupled between the metallization layer on the first surface of the laminate substrate (column 10, lines 13-18) and the first surface 3 of the RDL substrate 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liao fails to teach a first pair of pillars couple the first die to the second die and a second pair of conductive pillars couple the laminate substrate to the RDL substrate.
O’Sullivan teaches a first pair of pillars 525 (paragraph 0056 teaches 525 can be pillars) couple the first die 520 and the second die to the RDL 210 (figure 5C); and a second pair of conductive pillars 595 (paragraph 0063) couple the laminate substrate 701 to the RDL substrate 210 (figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the pillars of O’Sullivan in the invention of Liao because O’Sullivan (paragraphs 0056 & 0063) teaches the equivalence of the solder of Liao with pillars. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 5, Liao (figure 1) teaches the laminate substrate comprises a printed circuit board (column 10, lines 13-18) having a metallization layer to couple to the second pair of conductive pillars.
In claim 8, though Liao fails to teach a three-dimensional 3D) [[3D]] inductor coupled to the MIM capacitor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a 3D inductor in the invention of Liao because it is conventionally known and used in the prior art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 10, though Liao fails to teach the RDL substrate comprises a radio frequency (RF) filter, integrated in a radio frequency front-end (RFFE) module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use this configuration in the invention of Liao because it is conventionally known and used in the prior art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 31, Liao (figure 1) teaches in which the metallization layer 105 on the surface of the die 103 comprises a metal one (M1) metallization layer 105.
In re claim 32, Liao (figure 1) teaches the conductive pillar 109 of the first pair of conductive pillars 109/109A is coupled between the M1 metallization layer 105 on the surface of the die 1 and an M1 metallization layer 110 on the second surface 2 of the RDL substrate 1.
Concerning claim 33, Liao (figure 1) teaches a plate 110 of the MIM capacitor C comprises the M1 metallization layer 110 on the second surface 2 of the RDL substrate 1.
Pertaining to claim 34, Liao (figure 1) teaches a conductive pillar 109 of the first pair of conductive pillars 109/109A is coupled between the M1 metallization layer 105 on the surface of the die 103 and the plate 110 of the MIM capacitor C.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 7/11/26
Prosecution Insights