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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1 Aug 2023 and 27 May 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of a minor informality in ¶[0062], as can be seen in the following proposed edit to ¶[0062]: “That is, when the through electrode 40 and the first electrode part 50 are formed only with the first metal layer, the through hole is not completely filled, and thus a dimple phenomenon occurs in the through electrode 40 and the first electrode part 50 …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Figures 1–2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). According to the specification, Figs. 1–2 show two views of a comparative example to illustrate a known problem (surface stains on electrodes) in the prior art that the present application’s claimed invention solves: “Before describing the present embodiment, a comparative example compared to the present embodiment will be described. FIG. 1 is a view illustrating a circuit board according to a comparative example, and FIG. 2 is a view showing a surface of an electrode part of FIG. 1” ¶[0048–0050].
In Figs. 9 and 17–21 (six drawings), the part labeled 233-2 should be changed to 232-2 because the second through electrode 232 comprises 232-1 (the first portion of the second seed layer 270) and 232-2 (the first portion of the second metal layer 280) according to ¶[00176] and ¶[00225–00226] of the specification.
In Figs. 22–23 (two drawings), the part labeled 222 (the second electrode part 222) currently only points to the part that was previously labeled as 222-1 (the first portion of the second seed layer 270) in Figs. 9 and 12–21. To avoid confusion, the examiner recommends having 222 point to the group of two layers (222-1 and 222-2, which do not need to be individually labeled in Figs. 22–23) that make up the second electrode part 222, following the same group-labeling style (using an arc) that was used for the labels 223, 241, 225, and 242 in Figs. 22–23.
Also in Figs. 22–23 (two drawings), it is recommended to have the part 224 (which is the mirror image of the second electrode part 222) point to the group of two layers in the same manner as described in the previous paragraph.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 21, and 29–30 objected to because of minor informalities, as can be understood from the following suggested corrections:
Claim 14: “… wherein a thickness of the third electrode part is greater than [[a]] the thickness of each of the first electrode part and the second electrode part.”
Claim 21: “… wherein a first depth from an upper surface …”
Claim 29: “… wherein a thickness of the third electrode part is greater than [[a]] the thickness of each of the first electrode part and the second electrode part.”
Claim 30: “… wherein the first convex surface of the second electrode part overlaps a separation region …” (because claim 27, upon which claim 30 depends, introduced “a first convex surface” of the upper surface of the second electrode part)
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.
Claims 11–24 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.
Regarding claim 11, below is a quotation of the last three paragraphs (with emphasis and drawing references to Fig. 9 added by the examiner):
“… wherein the second electrode part 222 includes a first portion overlapping the first through electrode 231 in a vertical direction and a second portion overlapping the first through electrode 231 in the vertical direction,
wherein an upper surface of the first portion of the second electrode part 222 has a concave surface that is concave toward the first through electrode 231, and
wherein an upper surface of the second electrode part 222 has a convex surface that is convex toward the second insulating layer 212.”
PNG
media_image1.png
357
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that the second electrode part 222 refers to 221-1 (the second portion of the first seed layer 250) and 222-2 (the second portion of the first metal layer 260) according to ¶[00171] of the specification. That is, according to Fig. 9 and ¶[00171], only the part of the first metal layer 260 that is above a horizontal plane that includes the interface between the first 211 and second 212 insulating layers is included in the second electrode part 222.
In reading claim 11 while referencing Fig. 9 and the specification, it was unclear to the examiner how to locate the “first portion” and the “second portion” of the second electrode part 222. Based on the drawing, a first guess would be that the “first portion” is 222-1 and the “second portion” is 222-2. However, in the specification, 222-1 is the second portion of the first seed layer 150 ¶[00168], and 222-2 is the second portion of the first metal layer 260 ¶[00169], which contradicts the guess that 221-1 and 221-2 are the first and second portions, respectively, of the second electrode part 222. When these terms are first introduced in claim 11, both the first portion and the second portion are described as “overlapping the first through electrode 231 in a/the vertical direction”, which does not provide any way to differentiate between the two portions.
Thus, the reader looks to the last two paragraphs of the claim for a way to differentiate between the two portions. The first portion is described as having an upper surface that is “concave toward the first through electrode 231”. Since the first through electrode 231 is located below the second electrode part 222, this means that the upper surface of the first portion of the second electrode part 222 must be concave toward the down direction like an arch or the top of a round hill, which calculus students are taught to call “concave down”. The examiner has added to Fig. 9 the label “first portion?”, pointing to a dashed circle that encloses a concave down portion of the upper surface of the second electrode part 222 (which is a portion of the upper surface of 222-2, the second portion of the first metal layer 260). The labeled portion also meets the requirement that the first portion must vertically overlap the first through electrode 231 (which includes 231-1 and 231-2).
Looking to the last paragraph of the claim, the second portion is not mentioned at all, so the examiner is unsure how the second portion is defined. The examiner guesses that the applicant intended to include the second portion in the last paragraph in a similar format to the previous paragraph. In which case, a best attempt to understand the claim involves editing the last paragraph as follows:
“…wherein an upper surface of the second portion of the second electrode part 222 has a convex surface that is convex toward the second insulating layer 212.”
Since the second insulating layer 212 is located above the second electrode part 222, this means that the upper surface of the second portion of the second electrode part 222 must be convex toward the up direction like an arch, which is the same type of curvature (concave down) that was already used to define the first portion.
Thus, since the claim describes both the first portion and the second portion as having the same type of curvature (concave towards the down direction, which is equivalent to convex towards the up direction), no way is provided to distinguish between the first portion and the second portion, which makes these terms indefinite.
The examiner guesses that the applicant’s intent here may have been to claim the “wavy” shape of the upper surface of the second electrode part 222, with the “hill” portions corresponding to the second electrode part 222 itself, and the “valley” portions corresponding to the “dimple” interface between the first through electrode 231 and the second through electrode 232.
While the specification never defines the terms “a first portion of the second electrode part” or “a second portion of the second electrode part”, a hint in regards to analogous portions of the first electrode part is provided in ¶[0017]: “the first electrode part includes a first region overlapping the through electrode in a thickness direction and a second region other than the first region”, and this is restated in ¶[00121] and ¶[00124] (i.e., the specification uses first/second region instead of first/second portion). First/second regions of the third electrode part are defined the same way in ¶[00189].
Another hint as to the intended meaning of the first/second portions of the second electrode part is provided in the other independent claim (claim 25),
“… wherein an upper surface of the second electrode part 222 has a first concave surface overlapping the first through electrode 231 in a vertical direction …”,
and in its dependent claim 27,
“… wherein an upper surface of the second electrode part 222 includes a first convex surface connected to the first concave surface and not overlapping with the first through electrode 231 in the vertical direction.”
Making a best effort to understand claim 11 in view of Fig. 9, similar claims 25 and 27, and the specification, the examiner is interpreting claim 11 as if it were edited as follows:
“… wherein the second electrode part 222 includes a first portion overlapping the first through electrode 231 in a vertical direction and a second portion not overlapping the first through electrode 231 in the vertical direction,
wherein an upper surface of the first portion of the second electrode part 222 has a concave surface, and
wherein an upper surface of the second portion of the second electrode part 222 has a convex surface.”
(Of course, drawing references to Fig. 9 are only included above for explanatory purposes and should not be included in the amended claim.)
PNG
media_image2.png
357
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The two phrases of the type “… that is concave/convex toward the (fill in the blank)” are unnecessary (and add potential confusion) because “concave” and “convex” are describing the upper surface of the second electrode part 222, so “concave” means a recess in the upper surface of the second electrode part 222, and “convex” means a protrusion in the upper surface of the second electrode part 222.
Regarding claims 12–24, these claims inherit the indefiniteness of claim 11 due to their dependence on claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if the rejection under 35 USC §112(b) due to indefiniteness were overcome. The closest prior art of
Hisada et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. US 2014/0041923 A1),
Mun et al. (pub. patent app. US 2022/0030713 A1),
Choi et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. KR 10-2013-0044554 A),
Kim et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. KR 10-2019-0012075 A),
Imai (from the IDS, pub. patent app. JP 2012-049423 A), and
Naganuma et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. US 2011/0180908 A1)
either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious (in boldface below),
“… wherein the second electrode part includes a first portion overlapping the first through electrode in a vertical direction and a second portion [not] overlapping the first through electrode in the vertical direction,
wherein an upper surface of the first portion of the second electrode part has a concave surface
wherein an upper surface of [the second portion of] the second electrode part has a convex surface
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Likewise, claims 12–24, which depend on claim 11, would be allowable if the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC §112(b) due to indefiniteness were overcome. (Claims 14 and 21 would be allowable if the objections due to minor informalities in claims 14 and 21 were overcome.)
Claim 25 is allowed. The closest prior art of
Hisada et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. US 2014/0041923 A1),
Mun et al. (pub. patent app. US 2022/0030713 A1),
Choi et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. KR 10-2013-0044554 A),
Kim et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. KR 10-2019-0012075 A),
Imai (from the IDS, pub. patent app. JP 2012-049423 A), and
Naganuma et al. (from the IDS, pub. patent app. US 2011/0180908 A1)
either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious (in boldface below),
“… wherein an upper surface of the second electrode part has a first concave surface overlapping the first through electrode in a vertical direction,
wherein an upper surface of the third electrode part has a second concave surface overlapping the second through electrode in the vertical direction, and
wherein a first depth from an upper surface of the first insulating layer to a lowermost end of the first concave surface is different from a second depth from an upper surface of the second insulating layer to a lowermost end of the second concave surface”,
in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Likewise, claims 26–28 are allowed because they depend on allowed claim 25.
Claims 29 and 30 would be allowable (due to their dependence on claim 25) if the objections due to minor informalities in claims 29 and 30 were overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200163228 A1
US 20150107886 A1
JP 2015038909 A
JP 2015038910 A
KR 20140078199 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Mott whose telephone number is (571)272-2367. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/A.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights