DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sukumaran (2018/0254239).
Regarding Claim 1: Sukumaran teaches a method of preventing corrosion associated with an electrically-conductive through-glass via (TGV), comprising: forming a TGV (203) in a glass substrate (201) for use in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (a glass substrate is commonly known to be used in MEMs devices as per references below), the TGV having a first end and a second end, and at least partially comprising copper (paragraph [0033]); applying a conductive barrier layer (213) on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 2: Sukumaran teaches applying a metal layer over the conductive barrier layer (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 3: Sukumaran teaches extending the conductive barrier layer over the first end of the TGV (fig. 2I), and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV (fig. 2I), such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate (fig. 2I).
Regarding Claim 4: Sukumaran teaches applying the conductive barrier layer using an electroless plating process (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 5: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is electroless palladium and immersion gold (EPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 6: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is immersion gold, electroless palladium, and immersion gold (IGEPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 7: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is Electroless Nickel and Immersion Gold (ENIG) (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 8: Sukumaran teaches wherein forming the TGV in the glass substrate further comprises forming a planar TGV in the glass substrate (fig. 2I).
Regarding Claim 10: Sukumaran teaches an electrically-conductive through-glass via (TGV) structure, comprising: a TGV (203) formed in a glass substrate (201) for use in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (a glass substrate is commonly known to be used in MEMs devices as per references below), the TGV having a first end and a second end, and at least partially comprising copper (paste in paragraph [0033]); and a conductive barrier layer (213 and paragraph [0036]) applied on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 11: Sukumaran teaches a metal layer disposed over the conductive barrier layer (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 12: Sukumaran teaches wherein the conductive barrier layer extends over the first end of the TGV (fig. 2I), and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV (fig. 2I), such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate (fig. 2I).
Regarding Claim 13: Sukumaran teaches wherein the conductive barrier layer is applied using an electroless plating process (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 14: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is electroless palladium and immersion gold (EPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 15: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is immersion gold, electroless palladium, and immersion gold (IGEPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 16: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is Electroless Nickel and Immersion Gold (ENIG) (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 17: Sukumaran teaches wherein the TGV is a planar TGV (fig. 2I).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vandemeer (2015/0353348).
Regarding Claim 1: Regarding Claim 1: Vandemeer teaches a method of preventing corrosion associated with an electrically-conductive through-glass via (TGV), comprising: forming a TGV in a glass substrate (figs. 2 and 4B, paragraph [0039]) for use in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (fig. 2), the TGV having a first end and a second end, and at least partially comprising copper (131, paragraph [0039]); applying a conductive barrier layer (134) on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2: Vandemeer teaches applying a metal layer over the conductive barrier layer (132 and fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 8: Vandemeer teaches wherein forming the TGV in the glass substrate further comprises forming a planar TGV in the glass substrate (fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 9: Vandemeer teaches wherein forming the TGV in the glass substrate further comprises forming a pinched TGV in the glass substrate (fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 10: Vandemeer teaches an electrically-conductive through-glass via (TGV) structure, comprising: a TGV (figs. 2 and 4B) formed in a glass substrate (56) for use in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (fig. 2), the TGV having a first end and a second end, and at least partially comprising copper (131 and paragraph [0039]); and a conductive barrier layer (134) applied on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 11: Vandemeer teaches a metal layer disposed over the conductive barrier layer (132 and fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 17: Vandemeer teaches wherein the TGV is a planar TGV (fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 18: Vandemeer teaches wherein the TGV is a pinched TGV (fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 19: Vandemeer teaches a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) component, comprising: a glass substrate (58 and paragraph [0027]) that hosts a MEMS device (70); a glass lid (56) disposed on the glass substrate (58) and encompassing the MEMS device (70) within a cavity (fig. 2); a through-glass via (TGV) (89) formed in the glass lid (56), the TGV having a first end at an exterior of the glass lid, a second end electrically coupled to the MEMS device (see the routing of lines 84), and at least partially comprising copper (131 and paragraph [0039]); and a conductive barrier layer (134) applied on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0039]).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandemeer (2015/0353348).
Regarding Claim 3: Vandemeer lacks a specific teaching of extending the conductive barrier layer over the first end of the TGV, and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV, such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Vandemeer by extending the conductive barrier layer over the first end of the TGV, and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV, such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate in order to better protect the TGV layer while also creating greater reliability of the overall apparatus wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the shape of the currently disclosed elements of the apparatus and it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 12: Vandemeer lacks a specific teaching of the conductive barrier layer extends over the first end of the TGV, and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV, such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Vandemeer by the conductive barrier layer extends over the first end of the TGV, and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV, such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate in order to better protect the TGV layer while also creating greater reliability of the overall apparatus wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the shape of the currently disclosed elements of the apparatus and it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 20: Vandemeer lacks a specific teaching of wherein the conductive barrier layer extends over the first end of the TGV, and over at least a portion of the exterior of the glass lid, such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass lid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Vandemeer by wherein the conductive barrier layer extends over the first end of the TGV, and over at least a portion of the exterior of the glass lid, such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass lid in order to better protect the TGV layer while also creating greater reliability of the overall apparatus wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the shape of the currently disclosed elements of the apparatus and it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841