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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on October 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that no serious burden exists in examining all the pending claims. This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the Examiner may be prima facie shown if the Examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification (see Requirement for Restriction 09/24/2025), or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement clearly meets this requirement. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the Applicant, an unsupported statement by Applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as an “appropriate showing” or “evidence”. See MPEP § 803. Applicants’ argument to “boilerplate language” do not constitute appropriate showing or evidence and is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 24, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, the language “is provided” in line 1 is language that can be implied.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 alternately refers to an "ultra-thin" metallic film in line 1 and then "thin film" in lines 3 and 4, harmonization to a single description is requested. It is definite as presently recited as line 3 introduces a thin film part of the ultra-thin film structure of claim 1, however, harmonization is needed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the examiner notes that “ultra-thin” in the preamble is quantified in line 4 as 0.5-3 microns.
Regarding claim 6, “a plurality of integrated circuit devices” is explained in [0030] of the specification as “including active components such as diodes, field effect transistors, bipolar junction transistors, etc., passive elements such as resistors, capacitors, and inductors, etc., and the like”. One of ordinary skill in the art therefore reasonably understands an “integrated circuit” has at least two of these “devices” and as such a single “integrated circuit” reads on this claim limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2022/0388092 A1), hereinafter Chuang.
Regarding claim 1, Chuang teaches a bonding structure of a silver-nano-twinned layer formed on a first metal (substrate) ([0007]; nano-twinned metallic film structure with a nano-twinned metallic film on a surface of the substrate), with a transition grain layer between the first metal and parallel arranged twin boundaries (twin layer) ([0021]), the silver nano-twinned layer includes the transition grain layer ([0045]) and has a thickness of 0.1-100 microns ([0045]; this thickness is of a thin/ultra-thin film) and the thickness of the translation grain layer is 0.1 to about 1 micron ([0046]; includes values of a thickness of the total layer of 2 microns and of the transition layer of 0.1 microns, which calculates to 95% of the thickness of the nano-twinned thin film is the twin layer of the parallel arranged twin boundaries), and the parallel arranged twin boundaries include 90% or more [111] crystal orientation ([0044]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claims 2-5, Chuang teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches distance between the parallel arranged twin boundaries is 1-100 nm ([0044]), and an adhesive layer between the first metal and the silver nano-twinned layer that is 0.01-0.2 microns and made of Ti or Cr ([0022]-[0024]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0122326 A1), hereinafter ‘326.
Regarding claim 6, Chua teaches each limitation of claims 1-5, as discussed above and further teaches the first metal layer (substrate) may be a metal layer on a (further) semiconductor substrate ([0058]). Chua does not specifically teach a plurality of integrated circuit devices are formed on the surface of the substrate (see claim interpretation above).
‘326 is in similar field of endeavor of copper nano-twin layer (claim 1) of 0.1-500 micron thickness (claim 4, film) and teaches nano-twin metal layer can comprise a packaging substrate having wire layer, three-dimensional integrated circuit (3D-IC) board ([0042]). Regarding formed on a surface, this does not specifically recite limit the devices to be directly on the substrate and a metal layer comprising the 3D-IC would be somehow connected (to a surface of each).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chuang to incorporate the teaching of ‘326 regarding the metal layer comprising a 3D-IC. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). The prior art of Chuang teaches the product claimed (cited above), differing only by the details of the plurality of integrated circuit devices (finding 1). These details were known in ‘326 (cited above) (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art could have included a 3D-IC board in the structure for predictable results (finding 3).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0020599 A1), hereinafter ‘599.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Chua teaches each limitation of claims 1-5, as discussed above and further teaches the first metal layer (substrate) may be a metal layer on a (further) semiconductor substrate ([0058]). Chua does not specifically teach the substrate is a bare wafer substrate, nor the substrate comprises a silicon substrate, a silicon carbide substrate, a gallium arsenide substrate, a sapphire substrate or a glass substrate.
‘599 is in similar field of endeavor of copper nano-twin layer of 0.5-10 micron thickness ([0037]; film) and teaches the substrate includes a first substrate and a first metal layer, where the first substrate can be a silicon substrate or a silicon wafer (under layer) ([0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands that a silicon wafer is a “bare wafer”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chuang to incorporate the teaching of ‘599 regarding the silicon substrate/wafer. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). The prior art of Chuang teaches the product claimed (cited above), differing only by the details of the semiconductor substrate (finding 1). These details (silicon substrate/wafer) were known in ‘599 (cited above) (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted silicon for the semiconductor substrate for predictable results (finding 3), as silicon is a common semiconductor substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784