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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-4 and 11-15 in the reply filed on 12/4/2025 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 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.
Claims xx are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over xx.
Regarding claim 1, Huang (US 20190313524) (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches a through-electrode substrate (described as “substrate with vias” in para 87-89) comprising:
a substrate (100, described as “substrate 100” in para 124; see Figures 1-3) having a first face (102, para 124) and a second face (104, para 124 – see Figures 1-3) opposite to the first face and having a through-hole (110, para 124) extending from the first face to the second face (para 124, especially 3rd sentence); and
a through-electrode (comprising 122 and 150 – see para 127 and Figures 2-3) located in the through-hole of the substrate, wherein
a hole diameter (e.g. see various diameters 132a, 132b, 132c described in para 132; best seen in Figure 2) of the through-hole (110) varies according to a position (because of “tapered interior surface” of 114 described in para 132) in a thickness direction (i.e. vertical direction in orientation of Figures 2 and 3) of the substrate (para 132),
the through-hole (110) has a minimum diameter part (i.e. diameter 132c of “waist 125” of 110 – see para 132 and Figures 2) having a minimum hole diameter of greater than or equal to 10 μm (para 133 describes "diameter 132c" may be "greater than or equal to 10 μm and less than or equal to 40 μm", which lies within the claimed range),
the through-hole has a maximum hole diameter of less than or equal to 60 μm (para 135 teaches 132a or 132b may be 50 μm or 60 μm, and para 133 teaches that 132c may be 75% of 132a or 132b, or in the range of 10% - 80% of 132a or 132b, which overlaps with the claimed range);
the through-electrode has an adhesion layer (122, para 127; see Figure 2-3) and a conductive layer (150, para 127; see Figure 2-3) in order from a side face (114, para 127) of the through-hole toward a center of the through-hole.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” (as is the case for recited “hole diameter” above), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2144.05).
Huang does not teach that the substrate has “a dielectric loss tangent of greater than or equal to 0.0002 and less than or equal to 0.0005 at a frequency of 20 GHz”. However, Huang teaches that it is known in the art to use high silica content glasses for high frequency applications (para 185) and also gives example of a substrate comprising at least 90 mol% silica (para 217, especially 1st sentence; also para 231). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Huang so that electrical properties like dielectric loss tangent of the substrate that affect electrical performance especially at high frequencies are optimized for the given application, such as the claimed “a dielectric loss tangent of greater than or equal to 0.0002 and less than or equal to 0.0005 at a frequency of 20 GHz”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang for at least the purpose of designing the substrate for high frequency applications (para 185 of Huang).
Regarding claim 2, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein the through-hole has a narrowed part that is the minimum diameter part located between the first face and the second face, and a hole diameter at the narrowed part is greater than or equal to 10 μm, a hole diameter at the first face is less than or equal to 60 μm, and a hole diameter at the second face is less than or equal to 60 μm.(see para 6, which discloses 100 to 200 microns which overlaps with the claimed range, also see para 5). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” (as noted above), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein the adhesion layer contains any one of titanium (Ti), titanium nitride (TiN), and zinc oxide (ZnO). – see para 129 that dislcoset TiN
Regarding claim 4, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein the conductive layer contains copper (Cu) – see paragraphs 16, 38
Regarding claim 11, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein the minimum diameter part has a minimum hole diameter of greater than or equal to 25 μm (see para 6, which discloses 100 to 200 microns and also see para 5). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” (as is the case above), a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). See MPEP 2144.05).
.
Regarding claim 12, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein any one of a distance from the first face to the minimum diameter part in the thickness direction of the substrate and a distance from the second face to the minimum diameter part in the thickness direction of the substrate is less than or equal to 50 μm (see para 6 for via diameter and para 5 for that relates to the claimed distance; also note on overlapping ranges above for claim 11 applies). .
Regarding claim 13, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein a content of silicon dioxide in the substrate is higher than or equal to 90 wt %.(para 13, especially last sentence; also note on overlapping ranges above for claim 11 applies).
Regarding claim 14, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein the through-electrode contains copper, and a volume fraction of copper in the through-hole is lower than or equal to 50% (see para 4-6 and para 18-19, which discloses thickness of copper; also note on overlapping ranges above for claim 11 applies).
Regarding claim 14, Huang (refer to Figures 1-3) teaches the through-electrode substrate according to claim 1, wherein a surface roughness of the side face of the through-hole is less than or equal to 5 nm. (see para19,;also note on overlapping ranges above for claim 11 applies).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY ARORA whose telephone number is (571)272-8347. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, Drew Richards can be reached at 5712721736. 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.
/AJAY ARORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892