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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species A, figs. 1-2, claims 1-6 and 8-20 in the reply filed on 12/1/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 allowed.
Claim 8-9 and 16 are 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.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Karizaki, US 20170179050 A1 (e.g. fig. 18).
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(s) 1, 3, 5, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafzadeh et al., US Publication No. 2014/0312458 A1.
Ashrafzadeh teaches:
1. A package substrate comprising (see fig. 5):
a ceramic substrate (530/560/582; e.g. see ceramic at para. [0042], [0131]) comprising:
a…first insulating layer (560; e.g. see Remarks below); and
a first circuit wiring layer (582; e.g. see para. [0127] disclosing layer 582 may be more than one layer) disposed in the plurality of first insulating layers;
a redistribution structure (552/552A/552B/540) disposed on an upper surface of the ceramic substrate, the redistribution structure comprising:
a…second insulating layer (540; e.g. see Remarks below); and
a second circuit wiring layer (552) disposed in the plurality of second insulating layers and electrically connected to the first circuit wiring layer (582); and
a capacitor structure (CAP1) provided at an interface between the ceramic substrate (530/560/582) and the redistribution structure (552/552A/552B/540), the capacitor structure (CAP1) comprising:
a lower electrode layer (e.g. another 582; see para. [0127] disclosing layer 582 may be more than one layer) disposed at a same vertical level as at least a portion of the first circuit wiring layer (582);
a dielectric layer (530) disposed between the ceramic substrate and the redistribution structure; and
an upper electrode layer (552A, 552B) disposed on an upper surface of the dielectric layer. See Ashrafzadeh at para. [0001] – [0275], figs. 1-15.
Regarding claim 1:
Ashrafzadeh is silent the first insulating layer and the second insulating are a plurality of plurality of layers.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of first insulating layers and a plurality of second insulating layers, since duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI. Reversal, Duplication, or Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 3:
Ashrafzadeh further teaches:
3. The package substrate of claim 1, wherein the lower electrode layer (e.g. another 582) comprises a same material (e.g. It would have been obvious to comprise a same material when the plurality of layers are formed at the same time, para. [0127]) as the first circuit wiring layer (582), and
wherein the upper electrode layer (552A, 552B) includes a same material (e.g. same layer) as the second circuit wiring layer (552), fig. 5.
Ashrafzadeh teaches:
5. The package substrate of claim 1, wherein the redistribution structure (552/552A/552B/540) further comprises:
a first bump connection via (e.g. there are a plurality of 552) connected (e.g. through intervening layers) to the lower electrode layer (e.g. another 582) through one of the plurality of second insulating layers (540), and
a second bump connection via (e.g. there are a plurality of 552) connected (e.g. through intervening layers) to the upper electrode (552A, 552B) layer through the one of the plurality of second insulating layers (540).
Regarding claim 10:
Ashrafzadeh teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above.
Ashrafzadeh further teaches the added limitations:
10. A semiconductor package comprising (see fig. 5):
a package substrate (590);
an interposer (556+554+portion 540 below 542, 544) disposed on the package substrate; and
at least one semiconductor chip (542, 544) disposed on the interposer… (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12:
Ashrafzadeh teaches the limitations as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafzadeh, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in view of Baars et al., US Publication No. 2018/0061839.
Regarding claim 2:
Ashrafzadeh teaches:
2. The package substrate of claim 1, wherein the lower electrode layer (e.g. another 582) comprises a first conductive material, and
wherein the upper electrode layer (552A, 552B) includes a second conductive material (e.g. copper, para. [015]).
Ashrafzadeh is silent regarding the specific material of the lower electrode layer such that the second conductive material is “different from the first conductive material.”
In Ashrafzadeh’s fig. 5, the lower electrode is an electrode of the capacitor (CAP1).
In an analogous art, Baars teaches the capacitance of a capacitor can be adjusted by selecting an appropriate material for the electrode, para. [0039].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the second conductive material is “different from the first conductive material” in order to adjust the capacitance of the capacitor.
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 4:
Ashrafzadeh further teaches:
4. The package substrate of claim 1, wherein the lower electrode layer (e.g. another 582) comprises a conductive material, and
wherein the upper electrode layer (e.g. 552A, 552B) of comprises at least one of copper, nickel, gold, platinum, titanium, chromium, or an alloy thereof (e.g. copper, para. [0150]).
Ashrafzadeh is silent the lower electrode layer (e.g. another 582) comprises silver or tungsten.
In Ashrafzadeh’s fig. 5, the lower electrode is an electrode of the capacitor (CAP1).
In an analogous art, Baars teaches the capacitance of a capacitor can be adjusted by selecting an appropriate material for the electrode, para. [0039].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the lower electrode layer comprises silver or tungsten in order to adjust the capacitance of the capacitor.
It is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 11:
Ashrafzadeh and Baars teach the limitations as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Ashrafzadeh and Baars teach the limitations as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Ashrafzadeh does not expressly teach
wherein the dielectric layer has a thickness in a range of about 1 micrometer to about 5 micrometers.
In Ashrafzadeh’s fig. 5, the dielectric layer (530) is the insulator of capacitor (CAP1).
In an analogous art, Baars teaches the capacitance of a capacitor can be adjusted by adjusting the thickness of the insulator material, para. [0039]. Thus, the thickness of the dielectric layer is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the dielectric layer has a thickness in a range of about 1 micrometer to about 5 micrometers in order to adjust the capacitance of the capacitor.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges and Optimization of Ranges. (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ashrafzadeh with the teachings of Baar because “…the person skilled in the art will appreciate that a capacitance of the capacitor device 110B may be adjusted by appropriately dimensioning the first electrode 105B and/or the second electrode 113B, and/or selecting an appropriate material for the first electrode 105B and/or the second electrode 113B, and by selecting an appropriate material and/or composition of the insulating material 115B interposed between the first electrode 105 and the second electrode 113B, and by adjusting an appropriate thickness of the insulating material 115B”. See Baar at para. [0039].
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafzadeh in view of Baars et al., US Publication No. 2018/0061839 and Zhang et al. US Publication No. 2021/0043602 A1.
Regarding claim 6:
Ashrafzadeh teaches all the limitation of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach
wherein each of the first bump connection via and the second bump connection via has a first width in a range of about 20 micrometers to about 60 micrometers, and
wherein the dielectric layer has a thickness in a range of about 1 micrometer to about 5 micrometers.
In an analogous art, Zhang teaches vias in an redistribution can be formed to be smaller than 20 micrometers, which overlaps the claimed range. See Zhang at para. [0049].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
In Ashrafzadeh’s fig. 5, the dielectric layer (530) is the insulator of capacitor (CAP1).
In an analogous art, Baars teaches the capacitance of a capacitor can be adjusted by adjusting the thickness of the insulator material, para. [0039]. Thus, the thickness of the dielectric layer is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the dielectric layer has a thickness in a range of about 1 micrometer to about 5 micrometers in order to adjust the capacitance of the capacitor.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges and Optimization of Ranges. (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Regarding claim 14:
Ashrafzadeh, Baars and Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claims 5 and 6 above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ashrafzadeh with the teachings of Zhang because an art recognized suitable dimension for vias in an redistribution is a width smaller than 20 micrometers. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ashrafzadeh with the teachings of Baar because “…the person skilled in the art will appreciate that a capacitance of the capacitor device 110B may be adjusted by appropriately dimensioning the first electrode 105B and/or the second electrode 113B, and/or selecting an appropriate material for the first electrode 105B and/or the second electrode 113B, and by selecting an appropriate material and/or composition of the insulating material 115B interposed between the first electrode 105 and the second electrode 113B, and by adjusting an appropriate thickness of the insulating material 115B”. See Baar at para. [0039].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
12 February 2026