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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the openings” should read “the first and the second openings”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the openings” should read “the first and the second openings”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the first openings, second openings and channels” should read “wherein the first openings, the second openings and the channels”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more first opening” should read “one or more first openings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 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 13 recites the limitation ”the first opening”. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 11 which recites the limitation “first openings” (plural) and is dependent on claim 12 which recites the limitation “one of more first openings. It is not clear which one of the first openings claim 13 is referring to, and therefore the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claim 13 will be interpreted as: “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein one of the first openings is configured to be a signal interconnect, and wherein the second openings are configured to be ground interconnects”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niccum et al., (United States Application Publication Patent, US 2022/0367325 A1), hereinafter referenced as Niccum.
Regarding claim 1, Niccum teaches an apparatus, comprising: a substrate (Fig.3E, element #12); a first opening in the substrate (Fig.3E, second opening from the left side of the figure, openings are labelled as elements #24 in Fig.3C); a second opening in the substrate (Fig.3E, third opening from the left side of the figure); and a channel between the first opening and the second opening wherein the channel fluidically couples the first opening to the second opening (Fig.3C, channel represented by element #42’ couples the two openings); wherein there is liquid metal in the first opening, the second opening, and the channel (paragraph [0058], rows 14-16).
Regarding claim 4, Niccum teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Niccum further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the channel is at a top surface of the substrate (Fig.3E, the channel, represented by element #42’ is at the top surface of element #12).
Regarding claim 8, Niccum teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Niccum further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and the second openings have cross-sections that are circular or polygonal (Fig.3C, openings #24 have a circular cross section).
Regarding claim 10, Niccum teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Niccum further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a third opening (Fig.3E, second opening from the right side of the figure); and a second channel between the second opening and the third opening, wherein the second channel fluidically couples the second opening to the third opening (Fig.3E, second channel, represented by the portion of element #42’ between the second and third openings).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al., (Japanese Patent Application Publication Number, JP 2011055018 A) hereinafter referenced as Yamamoto_018.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto_018 teaches an apparatus, comprising: a substrate (Fig.18, element #181A); a first opening in the substrate; a second opening in the substrate; and a channel between the first opening and the second opening, wherein the channel fluidically couples the first opening to the second opening (Fig.18, the two vertical openings in the substrate #181A, located below element #185B and the horizontal channel between the two openings which couples them), wherein there is liquid metal in the first opening, the second opening, and the channel (paragraph [0033], rows 9-16, some the compounds listed are metallic and liquid).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto_018 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yamamoto_018 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the channel is between a top surface of the substrate and a bottom surface of the substrate (Fig.18, the horizontal channel between the two openings, as defined in the rejection of claim 1, is located between the top surface and the bottom surface of substrate #181A).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niccum, in view of Lu Shuang-hao et al., (Chinese Patent Application Publication Number, CN 111385978 A) hereinafter referenced as Lu.
Regarding claim 2, Niccum teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Niccum teaches liquid metal in the openings and the channel but does not each the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the liquid metal comprises gallium (paragraph [0033], rows 9-16, some the compounds listed are metallic and liquid). Lu teaches wherein the liquid metal comprises gallium (page 3, row 14 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Lu and disclose wherein the liquid metal comprises gallium. Gallium is a known liquid metal and using it would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto_018, in view of Kudo et al., (Japanese Patent Application Publication Number, JP H09237854 A) hereinafter referenced as Kudo.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto_018 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yamamoto_018 teaches a single channel between the first opening and the second opening (see rejection of claim 1). Yamamoto_018 does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of channels between the first opening and the second opening. Kudo teaches multiple conductors between two via openings that are filled with conductive metal (Fig.1). One skilled in the art would have recognized that, similar to the structure disclosed by Kudo, the openings disclosed by Yamamoto_018 can also be connected by two or more conductive channels. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kudo and disclose a plurality of channels between the first opening and the second opening. As disclosed by Kudo, having multiple electrical connections between the via openings result in an increase of electrical resistance, while allowing an increase of the density of wiring in the substrate (paragraph [0001]). The same effect is true if liquid metal is used for wiring as disclosed by Yamamoto_018. Furthermore, having multiple channels connecting the openings increases the connection reliability between the two openings, and decreases yield loss due to defective/obstructed channels that might prevent the connection between the openings.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto_018.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto_018 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yamamoto_018 teaches a substrate comprised of a first half and a second half, wherein a seam is provided between the first half and the second half (Fig.16(a) and (b), substrate formed by elements #162A and #161C that can be bonded using anodic bonding, which creates a seam between the two halves, paragraph [0034], rows 15-22). A person skilled in the art would recognize the substrate #181A of Fig.18 can be formed as the substrate described in Fig.16(a) and (b), and therefore have a seam provided between the top and bottom halves. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Yamamoto_018 and disclose a substrate comprised of a first half and a second half, wherein a seam is provided between the first half and the second half. As disclosed by Yamamoto_018, this allows the fabrication of substrates where the different halves can be designed independently and have different wiring distribution, which allows for increased functionality and design choices to increase the wiring density.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto_018, in view of Yamamoto et al., (Japanese Patent Application Publication Number, JP 2007081053 A) hereinafter referenced as Yamamoto_053.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto_018 teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 6 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yamamoto_018 does not teach the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the seam intersects the channel. Yamamoto_053 teaches wherein the seam intersects the channel (Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto_053 and disclose wherein the seam intersects the channel. Creating the channels at the surface of the two substrate halves, which results in the seam intersecting the channels, is easier from the manufacturing point of view as compared to creating the channels inside the substrate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto_018, in view of Isobe, (United States Patent Number, US 10,292,275 B2) hereinafter referenced as Isobe.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto_018 teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 6 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yamamoto_018 does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein sidewalls of the openings are tapered. Isobe teaches wherein sidewalls of the openings are tapered (Fig.2C). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Isobe and disclose wherein sidewalls of the openings are tapered. As disclosed by Isobe, making the sidewalls of the opening tapered eliminates the formation of a narrow opening in the middle of the opening, which may impede the electrical conduction through the opening.
Claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto_018, in view of Ishihara et al., (Japanese Patent Application Publication Number, JP H10284836 A) hereinafter referenced as Ishihara, and in view of Mahajan et al., (United States Patent Number, US 11,996,380 B2) hereinafter referenced as Mahajan.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto_018 teaches an apparatus, comprising: a substrate (Fig.18, element #181A); first opening through the substrate (Fig.18, leftmost opening); and second openings through the substrate wherein the second openings are fluidically coupled to each other by channels embedded in the substrate (Fig.18, the two vertical openings in the substrate #181A, located below element #185B and the horizontal channel between the two openings which coupled them), and wherein the first openings, second openings, and channels include liquid metal therein (paragraph [0033], rows 9-16). Yamamoto_018 does not directly teach first openings (plural). Ishihara teaches multiple second opening connected by channels (Fig.1c, substrate made from the top two layers, there are three openings and two horizontal channels between the leftmost opening and the rightmost opening). Mahajan teaches a plurality of openings, where some can be first openings, and some connected through channels, that form a pattern used to electrically interconnect different dies/parts of the circuit (Fig.1C and Fig.6). Also, Fig.18 of Yamamoto_018 is just an example of an opening pattern and opening connections. Having a plurality of first openings located in the substrate is a design choice to accommodate different distribution of electrical connections, such as connections of different devices to the substrate. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious, absent persuasive evidence, that different electrical interconnections may require more than one first opening.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yamamoto_018, Ishihara, and Mahajan teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth in the obvious rejection. Mahajan further teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein a plurality of second openings are arranged around one or more first opening, and wherein the plurality of second openings are all fluidically coupled together by a plurality of channels (Fig.6, channels connect the second openings located on the outside of the figure, and they are around a first opening located in the middle of the figure). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Mahajan and disclose wherein a plurality of second openings are arranged around one or more first opening, and wherein the plurality of second openings are all fluidically coupled together by a plurality of channels. As disclosed by Mahajan, the arrangement and coupling of the first and second openings by a plurality of channels is part of the circuit design (as shown in Fig.6).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yamamoto_018, Ishihara, and Mahajan teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth in the obvious rejection. The combination of Yamamoto_018, Ishihara, and Mahajan teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein one of the first openings is configured to be a signal interconnect, and wherein the second openings are configured to be ground interconnects (the openings can be connected to ground or signal sources, and therefore are configured to be signal and ground interconnects).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto_018, in view of Ishihara, Mahajan and in view of Lu.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yamamoto_018, Ishihara, and Mahajan teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth in the obvious rejection. Yamamoto_018 teaches liquid metal in the openings and the channel (paragraph [0033], rows 9-16, list indium) but does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the liquid metal comprises gallium. Lu teaches wherein the liquid metal comprises gallium (liquid metal includes gallium, page 3, row 14 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Lu and disclose wherein the liquid metal comprises gallium. Gallium is a known liquid metal and using it to fill the openings and establish electrical connections would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yamamoto_018, Ishihara, and Mahajan teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth in the obvious rejection. Mahajan further teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first openings and the second openings have cross-sections that are circular or polygonal (Fig.6, the microchannels connect circular openings). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mahajan and disclose the first openings and the second openings have cross-sections that are circular or polygonal. Making openings/vias into substrates, having circular cross-sections, is well known in the art and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.03)
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto_018, in view of Ishihara, Mahajan and in view of Kudo.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yamamoto_018, Ishihara, and Mahajan teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth in the obvious rejection. Yamamoto_018 teaches wherein one or more of the second openings are connected to one channel (Fig.18, the two vertical openings in the substrate #181A, located below element #185B are connected by one horizontal channel between the two). Yamamoto_018 does not teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein one or more of the second openings are connected to three or more channels. Kudo teaches three or more conductors between two via openings that are filled with conductive metal (Fig.5). While Kudo does not teach the space occupied by the conductors and the via openings being filled with liquid metal, one skilled in the art would recognize that, similar to the structure disclosed by Kudo, the openings disclosed by Yamamoto_018 can also be connected by two or more channels. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kudo and disclose a plurality of channels between the first opening and the second opening. As disclosed by Kudo, having multiple electrical connections between the via openings result in an increase of electrical resistance, while allowing an increase of the density of wiring in the substrate (paragraph [0001]). The same effect is true if liquid metal is used for wiring as disclosed by Yamamoto_018. Furthermore, having multiple channels connecting the openings increases the connection reliability between the two openings, and decreases yield loss due to defective/obstructed channels that might prevent the connection between the openings.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yamamoto_018, Ishihara, and Mahajan teaches the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth in the obvious rejection. Yamamoto_018 teaches a single channel coupling together pairs of the second openings (Fig.18, vertical openings in the substrate #181A, located below element #185B and the horizontal channel between the two openings which coupled them). Yamamoto_018 does not teach the apparatus of claim 11, wherein two or more channels couple together individual pairs of second openings. Kudo teaches two or more conductors couple together a pair of via openings that are filled with conductive metal (Fig.5). While Kudo does not teach the space occupied by the conductors and the via openings being filled with liquid metal, one skilled in the art would recognize that, similar to the structure disclosed by Kudo, the openings disclosed by Yamamoto_018 can also be connected by two or more channels. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kudo and disclose a plurality of channels between the first opening and the second opening. As disclosed by Kudo, having multiple electrical connections between the via openings result in an increase of electrical resistance, while allowing an increase of the density of wiring in the substrate (paragraph [0001]). The same effect is true if liquid metal is used for wiring as disclosed by Yamamoto_018. Furthermore, having multiple channels connecting the openings increases the connection reliability between the two openings, and decreases yield loss due to defective/obstructed channels that might prevent the connection between the openings.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuli et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2009/0001576 A1) hereinafter referenced as Tuli, in view of Yamamoto_018 and in view of Meyyappan et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2021/0392774 A1) hereinafter referenced as Meyyappan.
Regarding claim 18, Tuli teaches an electronic system, comprising: a board (Fig.3, element #210); a package substrate coupled to the board by a socket architecture (Fig.3, element #330), wherein the socket architecture comprises: an interposer (Fig.3, element #320); and a first opening and a second opening in the interposer (Fig.3, element #322). Tuli also teaches a liquid metal in the first opening and the second opening (paragraph [0023], rows 9-11).
Tuli does not teach a channel embedded in the interposer, wherein the channel fluidically couples the first opening to the second opening. Yamamoto_018 teaches a first opening in the interposer; a second opening in the interposer; a channel embedded in the interposer, wherein the channel fluidically couples the first opening to the second opening (Fig.18, the two vertical openings in the substrate #181A, located below element #185B and the horizontal channel between the two openings which coupled them); a liquid metal in the first opening, the second opening, and the channel (paragraph [0033], rows 9-16). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto_018 and disclose a channel embedded in the interposer, wherein the channel fluidically couples the first opening to the second opening. Having a channel connecting the openings increases the connection reliability of the two openings, and decreases yield loss due to defective pins or contacts between the pins and liquid metal in the openings.
Tuli further teaches a capping layer over the interposer to confine the liquid metal (Fig.3, element #326); and a protruding interconnect extending from the board inserted through the capping layer (Fig.3, element #312, paragraph [0019], rows 6-7, paragraph [0021], rows 7-8); and a die coupled to the package substrate (Fig.3, element #340). The combination of Tuli and Yamamoto_018 does not teach the protruding interconnect is a pin. Meyyappan teaches the protruding interconnect is a pin (Fig.1B, element #122, paragraph [0028], rows 5-6). Thus, both references Tuli and Meyyappan teach an interconnect electrically coupling a board to an interposer. A person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the protruding interconnect disclosed by Tuli could have been replaced for the pin disclosed by Meyyappan, because both serve the same purpose of electrically coupling a board to an interposer. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of providing an electrical connection between a board and an interposer. A pin offers a stable and low resistance contact and provides a secure mechanical grip when inserted into a socket.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tuli, Yamamoto_018 and Meyyappan teaches the electronic system of claim 18 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Tuli further teaches
the electronic system of claim 18, wherein the first opening and the second opening are configured for ground interconnects (Fig.3, openings #322 can be connected to ground through the interconnects #312, and therefore are configured for ground interconnects).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tuli, Yamamoto_018 and Meyyappan teaches the electronic system of claim 18, wherein the electronic system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile. Yamamoto_018 teaches the provided interposer and devices attached to it are geared towards increasing integration density and miniaturization of semiconductor packages in general, which have applications for mobile phones (paragraph [0002], [0003]) Therefore, one would be motivated to integrate the electronic system disclosed by the combination of Tuli, Yamamoto_018 and Meyyappan into a mobile phone. Therefore, the combination of Tuli, Yamamoto_018 and Meyyappan teaches the electronic system of claim 18, wherein the electronic system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights