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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuli et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0001576) (“Tuli”) in view of Jeong, I.H.; Eslami Majd, A.; Jung, J.P.; Ekere, N.N. Electrical and Mechanical Analysis of Different TSV Geometries. Metals 2020, 10, 467 (“Jeong”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tuli teaches a liquid metal carrier, comprising: a substrate (Figure 1, item 120), wherein the substrate comprises a polymer (¶0012); a first opening through the substrate with a first shape (see Figure 1, item 122); a first conductor in the first opening (¶0012), wherein the first conductor comprises gallium and one or more alloying elements (¶0012); a second opening through the substrate with a second shape (Figure 1, item 122),; and a second conductor in the second opening (¶0012), wherein the second conductor comprises gallium and one or more alloying elements (¶0012), and wherein the first conductor is configured for use as a first type of interconnect and the second conductor is configured for use as a second type of interconnect that is different than the first type of interconnect (the Examiner notes this language is intended use of the structure, not a structural limitation and the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “configured for use as a first type of interconnect and the second conductor is configured for use as a second type of interconnect that is different than the first type of interconnect” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Tuli who teaches the structure as claimed.
Tuli does not specifically teach wherein the first shape is different than the second shape. However, Jeong teaches the shape of assorted TSV style interconnects have differing characteristic impedances for high frequency application (see Figures 4 and 5) and thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the desired shape for the desired impedance characteristics as a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04)
Regarding Claim 2, Tuli as modified by Jeong further teaches the first opening is circular (see Figure 4) and the second opening is polygonal (see Figure 4 of Jeong).
Regarding Claim 3, Tuli as modified further teaches the first opening has a top shape at a first surface of the substrate and a bottom shape at a second surface of the substrate, wherein the top shape is different than the bottom shape (see Figure 4 of Jeong).
Regarding Claim 4, Tuli as modified further teaches one or both of the first shape and the second shape have a non-uniform cross-section through a thickness of the liquid metal carrier (see Figure 4 of Jeong).
Regarding Claim 5, Tuli as modified further teaches the non-uniform cross-section is a tapered cross-section or an hourglass shaped cross-section (see Figure 4 of Jeong).
Regarding Claim 6, Tuli as modified further teaches one or both of the first shape and the second shape include one or more side channels (see Figure 4 of Jeong – not side channels at top and bottom).
Regarding Claim 7, Tuli as modified further teaches a channel fluidically connects the first opening to the second opening (see Figure 1 of Tuli).
Regarding Claim 8, Tuli as modified further teaches the first opening is adjacent to the second opening (see Figure 1 of Tuli).
Regarding Claim 9, Tuli as modified further teaches the polymer comprises polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), styrene acrylonitrile (SAN), or polystyrene (¶0012).
Regarding Claim 12, Tuli teaches a liquid metal carrier, comprising: a substrate (Figure 1, item 120) with a first surface and a second surface opposite from the first surface (see Figure 1), wherein the substrate comprises a polymer (¶0012), and wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise a first average surface roughness, wherein the first average surface roughness is measured along a line at least partially across a length of the first surface and/or the second surface (note this inherent in having a structure with a surface); an opening (Figure 1, item 122) through the substrate from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the opening has a sidewall with a second average surface roughness, wherein the second average surface roughness is measured along a line at least partially through a depth of the opening (note this inherent in having a structure with a surface). Tuli does not specifically teach wherein the first average surface roughness is substantially equal to the second average surface roughness. However, the Examiner notes both materials are identical (¶0012) and absent a showing of criticality with respect to the surface roughness (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve desired liquid metal retention properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 11, Tuli does not specifically teach the first average surface roughness is approximately 1 µm or less, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 12, Tuli does not specifically teach the first average surface roughness is measured along a line that is at least 10% of the length of the first surface and/or the second surface, and wherein the second average surface roughness is measured along a line that is at least 25% of the depth of the opening. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 13, Jeong further teaches the opening has a cylindrical shape (see Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Jeong further teaches the opening has a rectangular prism shape (see Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Jeong further teaches the opening has a first shape at the first surface of the substrate and a second shape at the second surface of the substrate, wherein the first shape is different than the second shape (see Figure 4 of Jeong).
Regarding Claim 16, Jeong further teaches a channel that extends out from the sidewall of the opening (see Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Tuli teaches an electronic system, comprising: a board (Figure 1, item 110), wherein pins (Figure 1, item 114) extend away from the board; a package substrate (Figure 1, item 120) coupled to the board, wherein the package substrate comprises: a liquid metal carrier (Figure 1, item 122, ¶0012) with first openings with first volumes and second openings with second volumes, wherein the first openings and the second openings comprise a liquid metal (¶0012), wherein the liquid metal carrier comprises a polymer (¶0012), and wherein the pins directly contact the liquid metal (see Figure 1 and Figure 4, item 410 and ¶0014); and a die (Figure 1, item 130) coupled to the package substrate. Tuli does not specifically teach the second volumes are different than the first volumes. However, Jeong teaches the shape of assorted TSV style interconnects (and thus the volumes) have differing characteristic impedances for high frequency application (see Figures 4 and 5) and thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the desired shape for the desired impedance characteristics as a change in shape of an element was considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18, Tuli does not specifically teach wherein the first average surface roughness is substantially equal to the second average surface roughness. However, the Examiner notes both materials are identical (¶0012) and absent a showing of criticality with respect to the surface roughness (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve desired liquid metal retention properties. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 19, Tuli as modified further teaches one or more of the openings have a non-uniform cross-section through a thickness of the opening (see Jeong Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Tuli further teaches the electronic system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile (see ¶0001 – the Examiner notes the structural details of what must exist to be “a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile” have not been provided, thus the claimed elements must be sufficient to characterize the present structure as a “personal computer”.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhong et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0263588)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK W TORNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-4:30 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, Matthew 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.
MARK W. TORNOW
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2891
/MARK W TORNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights