DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a fist side surface” should instead recite “a first side surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added limitation: “the first part of the metal member comprises a fist [sic] side surface, the second part of the metal member comprises a second side surface connecting the surface of the second part, an extending direction of the second side surface of the metal member is different from an extending direction of the surface of the second part” (lines 21-25; emphasis added). There is nothing in the original specification, nor anything of such specificity in the drawing figures, which provides support for “an extending direction of the second side surface of the metal member is different from an extending direction of the surface of the second part”. These limitations have been added in the most recent claim amendments and appear to be directed to an attempt to claim a narrower embodiment than that which was originally disclosed. Rather than to amend claims in such a manner to solely overcome a prior art rejection, the Applicant is instead encouraged to amend the claims to disclose the inventive concept as originally disclosed. The “extending direction(s)” and their association with sides are not discussed at all in the specification.
The improperly added new matter has been examined herein, though it does not find support in the original disclosure.
Claims 2-4 and 6-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon the unsupported new matter of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are 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 1 discloses “a metal member comprising a surface… and a second part with the surface disposed between the first part and the substrate… the surface of the second part of the metal member shares a same plane with… the second part of the metal member comprises a second side surface connecting the surface of the second part” (lines 8-23; emphasis added). These limitations are indefinite, because it is not clear if the recitation of “a second part with the surface” (line 14) lacks antecedent basis (no second part having any surface was previously recited), or if it instead is referring to “the surface” of the “metal member”, which was previously recited, but is not recited in the instant limitation. The recitations of “the surface” which appear before and after that of line 14 serve only to further impede confident interpretation, due to their variations in nomenclature. As best understood, it appears that the metal member has a surface, the surface of the metal member is disposed between the first part (of the metal member) and the substrate; further, the second part also has “a surface”.
Claims 2-4 and 6-11 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
NOTE: All of the currently presented claims have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yu et al. (US 2019/0096817 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses an electronic device comprising a redistribution layer structure (fig. 3: 135/137 through 305 vertically, as viewed) disposed on a substrate (101), wherein the redistribution layer structure comprises: a metal member (305) comprising a surface (annotated fig. 3, below); a seed layer (“underbump metallizations”, 303) disposed between the metal member and the substrate (fig. 3; pars. 0011 and 0079-0080); and an insulating layer (301) surrounding the metal member and the seed layer, wherein the insulating layer comprises a first
PNG
media_image1.png
595
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
recess and a second recess overlapping the first recess, wherein the metal member is disposed in the first recess and comprises a first part and a second part with the surface disposed between the first part and the substrate, the metal member is not disposed in the second recess, the second recess exposes the surface of the second part of the metal member, the surface of the second part of the metal member shares a same plane with a surface of the second recess, and a width of the second recess is greater than a width of the surface of the metal member in a cross-sectional view of the metal member and the insulating layer, wherein in a cross-sectional view, the first part of the metal member comprises a fist [first] side surface (right side), the second part of the metal member comprises a second side surface (right side) connecting the surface of the second part, an extending direction (diagonal) of the second side surface of the metal member is different from an extending direction (horizontal) of the surface of the second
PNG
media_image2.png
335
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
part, and along the extending direction (left-to-right) of the surface of the second part, a minimum distance exists between the first side surface and the second side surface (all of the above: annotated fig. 3, at right and above), wherein the substrate comprises glass (par. 0011). Yu further appears to show a ratio of the minimum distance to a thickness of the seed layer is greater than or equal to 1.1 and less than or equal to 3 (annotated fig. 3, right). Yu, however, does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of the minimum distance to a thickness of the seed layer is greater than or equal to 1.1 and less than or equal to 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed ratio for the product of Yu, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the insulating layer comprises a multilayer structure (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the insulating layer comprises organic insulating materials (polybenzoxazole) and inorganic insulating materials (silicon nitride) (par. 0079).
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a width of the first part is different from a width of the second part (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the metal member further comprises an another surface (“the surface of the metal member” as noted in annotated fig. 3, above) connecting between the first side surface and the second side surface (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are located on a same side (right) of the metal member (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the first side surface, the second side surface and the another surface define a side surface (right side) of the metal member, and the side surface of the metal member has a step-like shape (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the insulating layer comprises a single layer structure (top layer of 301 only) (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a portion of a surface of the insulating layer and the surface of the metal member are non-coplanar (fig. 3).
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 of this title, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, in view of Ueno (US 5,696,406).
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Yu, however, does not explicitly disclose that the insulating layer is directly connected with the metal member.
Ueno teaches that it is well known to provide a similar electronic device comprising a redistribution layer structure (Fig. 2C: all), wherein the redistribution layer structure comprises: a metal member (3) comprising a top surface (fig. 2C: top, as viewed); and an insulating layer (2 and 4 or only 4) surrounding the metal member and comprising a first recess (opening containing 3) and a second recess (5/7) overlapping the first recess, wherein the metal member is disposed in the first recess and is not disposed in the second recess, the second recess exposes (at the bottom of 7) the top surface of the metal member, the top surface of the metal member shares a same plane with a bottom surface of the second recess (top surface of 3 and bottom of 7), and a width (measured in left-to-right direction at location of 5) of the second recess is greater than a width (measured in left-to-right direction) of the top surface of the metal member in a cross-sectional view of the metal member and the insulating layer (fig. 2C; col. 3, lines 6-33); wherein the insulating layer is directly connected with the metal member (fig. 2C).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Yu to incorporate the direct connection of the metal member with the insulation layer of Ueno. POSITA would have realized that direct connection of the two elements can be easily and readily achieved by simply not applying seed layer (303) on the side walls of the recess to achieve the desired lamination strength, resistance to cracking and/or peeling and the like. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special direct connection was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old electronic device of Yu with the well-known direct connection of metal member to insulation of Ueno. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as they are currently being used in the instant rejection. Yu was not previously relied upon in rejection of the argued claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Shimizu (US 2015/0357276 A1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729