DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
First, it was noted that the Final rejection was improperly applied. This argument is agreed with and Finality is removed.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Turning to the rejection over Farooq, it is argued that Farooq’s conductive sheet isn’t an interposer substrate.
Note that an interposer substrate is an interconnect between multiple semiconductor components. Farooq’s conductive sheet 20 is exactly that, and interconnect between multiple semiconductor components 30 and 24. Just because Farooq doesn’t call it an interposer substrate doesn’t mean it isn’t, or can’t be, one.
Also argued is Farooq doesn’t teach a high modulus substrate nor the claimed load bearing support relationship between the stacked device components.
Note that the claim 19 states the interposer substrate is made of SiC, and Farooq teaches the conductive sheet is made of SiC (paragraphs 0055-0056), therefore since they are made of the same material they are the same high modulus substrate. As to the load bearing support relationship, Farooq teaches it is between the two device components 30 and 24 therefore it inherently supports the two device components, and there is no claim limitation directed toward “load bearing” or how much support it provides. Even if this was claimed, it would not overcome Farooq teaching it has device components 30 & 24 on both sides therefore it inherently supports them and bears some amount of the load.
Now to address the arguments presented with regard to the Park rejection.
First it is argued that Park does not teach an interposer substrate having the claimed Young’s modulus.
Note that Park isn’t relied upon to teach the Young’s modulus, Farooq does that in the 103 rejection. Claim 19 states the interposer substrate is made of SiC, and Farooq teaches the conductive sheet is made of SiC (paragraphs 0055-0056), therefore since they are made of the same material they have the same Young’s modulus.
Also argued is that Park’s interposer substrate is not a load bearing mechanical support.
Note Park teaches it is between the two device components 30/40a/40b and 1, therefore it inherently supports the two device components, and there is no claim limitation directed toward “load bearing” or how much support it provides. What is claimed is “configured to support”. The conductive sheet of Farooq is between two device components therefore it inherently is configured to support. Even if “load bearing” was claimed, it would not overcome Park. teaching it has device components 30 & 24 on both sides therefore it inherently supports them and bears some amount of the load.
Another argument was that the combination of Farooq with Park to teach SiC, which meets all of the claimed material characteristics, uses impermissible reconstruction since Farooq is a conductive sheet and isn’t a load bearing support, therefore the two references cannot be combined.
As detailed above, a conductive sheet can be an interposer support because it interconnects two device components, which is the basic definition of an interposer substrate. It doesn’t have to be called an interposer substrate in order to be an interposer substrate.
As also detailed above, there is no claim limitation staring “load bearing”, what is claimed is “configured to support”. The conductive sheet of Farooq is between two device components therefore it inherently is configured to support. Even if “load bearing” was claimed, it would not overcome Park’s teaching it has device components 30 & 24 on both sides therefore it inherently supports them and bears some amount of the load.
All that is being used from Farooq is the substrate is made of SiC, which meets all of the claimed material characteristics. They are both similar substrates performing similar functions, therefore there is a reason to combine them.
Another argument is that Farooq and Park teach different thermal strategies than the claimed substrate centric strategy.
Note that these references individually or in combination teach the claim limitations. Beyond that the thermal strategy is not overly exclusory, especially since comprising claim language is used. That allows for extra components or limitations as long as the claimed subject matter is found within the references.
Further argued is that stating the Young’s modulus range and the structural support claim feature being rejected by saying they are conventional materials is insufficient and doesn’t provide a full and proper explanation.
Note that the rejection states that Park teaches an insulating ceramic without naming any materials that this would encompass. Farooq teaches SiC, which is a known insulating ceramic. Therefore, since Park requires an insulating ceramic, and Farooq teaches SiC is a known insulating ceramic used in a similar manner, it would be obvious to use Farooq’s SiC as the insulating ceramic in Park. The explanation is that SiC is a conventionally known insulating ceramic.
The support feature is an inherent property of the interposer substrate of Park and the conductive sheet of Farooq. Both are between two device components so they inherently and necessarily provide at least some level of support by the mere fact the two device components are attached to them.
An additional argument is that impermissible hindsight is used to arrive at the rejection, that the prior art doesn’t teach any desirability for the combination, and lacks a reason to combine the references.
Note that "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the desirability and reason to combine arguments, as stated above, note that the 103 rejection combines Park’s teaching of using an insulating ceramic with Farooq’s teaching that SiC is a known insulating ceramic used in a similar manner. The desirability and reason to combine is to show that SiC is a known insulating ceramic used in an interposer.
Rejection over Farooq et al., US 2024/0332121
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 12-19, 63, and 93-94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Farooq et al., US 2024/0332121.
Regarding claim 1, Farooq (figure 13) teaches a thermally conductive interposer comprising:
an interposer substrate 20 having a first substrate surface (top) and a second substrate surface (bottom);
the first substrate surface (top) being configured to be attached to a first device component; the second substrate surface being configured to be attached to a second device component 30; and
the interposer substrate 20 being configured to support the second device component 24 on the first device component 30 and integrate the first device component 30 and the second device component 24 within a microelectronic device,
wherein the interposer substrate 20 (12 & 14 are made of SiC) comprises a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 1.5 W/cm-K (watts per centimeter Kelvin);
wherein the interposer substrate 20 (12 & 14 are made of SiC) comprises a material having a Youngs Modulus greater than 200 GPa (Giga Pascals);
wherein the interposer substrate 20 is configured to transfer heat between the first device component and the second device component; and
wherein the interposer substrate 20 is configured to be electrically nonconductive (title).
Farooq teaches the interposer substrate 20 is made of layers 12/14/16 wherein 12 and 16 are made of SiC (paragraphs 0055 & 0056). The present application teaches the material that meets these limitations is SiC. The fact that layer 16 is not SiC doesn’t matter because the claim uses comprising language so the broadest reasonable interpretation would include substrates made of more than just SiC. As a result the thermal conductivity and Youngs Modulus limitations are met.
With respect to claim 2, Farooq (figure 13) teaches at least one redistribution line (top and bottom of 28 are bond pads) arranged on the first substrate surface (top) and/or the second substrate surface (bottom).
As to claim 3, Farooq (figure 13) teaches the at least one redistribution line (top and bottom of 28 are bond pads) comprises at least one metal trace, at least one metal bond pad, at least one passive component, at least one metallic pillar, at least one solder bump, and/or at least one polyimide dielectric portion.
In re claim 6, Farooq (figure 13) teaches the at least one redistribution line (top and bottom of 28 are bond pads) comprises at least one first redistribution line (top of 28 are bond pads) arranged on the first substrate surface (top) and at least one second redistribution line (bottom of 28 are bond pads) arranged on the second substrate surface (bottom).
Concerning claim 7, Farooq (paragraph 0068) teaches the first device component 30 comprises at least one transistor.
Pertaining to claim 8, Farooq (figure 13) teaches the first device component 30 comprises at least one bond pad 34 configured to electrically connect to the at least one redistribution line (top of 28 are bond pad).
In claim 9, Farooq (figure 13) teaches the second device component 24 comprises at least one bond pad 26 configured to electrically connect to the at least one redistribution line (bottom of 28 are bond pads).
Regarding claim 10, Farooq (figure 13) teaches the first device component 30 comprises at least one bond pad 34 configured to electrically connect to the at least one first redistribution line (top of 28 are bond pads); and wherein the second device component 24 comprises at least one bond pad 26 configured to electrically connect to the at least one second redistribution line (top of 28 are bond pads).
With respect to claims 12-18, Farooq (paragraphs 0055 & 0056 teach the use of SiC) teaches as the interposer substrate is mad of the same material as the invention, therefore the interposer substrate meets the claimed characteristics.
Farooq teaches the interposer substrate 20 is made of layers 12/14/16 wherein 12 and 16 are made of SiC (paragraphs 0055 & 0056). The present application teaches the material that meets these limitations is SiC. The fact that layer 16 is not SiC doesn’t matter because the claim uses comprising language so the broadest reasonable interpretation would include substrates made of more than just SiC. As a result this limitation is met.
As to claim 19, Farooq (paragraphs 0055 & 0056 teach the use of SiC) the interposer substrate comprises a SiC (silicon carbide) substrate.
In re claim 63, Farooq (figure 13) teaches a thermally conductive interposer comprising:
an interposer substrate 20 having a first substrate surface (top) and a second substrate surface (bottom);
the first substrate surface (top) being configured to be attached to a first device component 30;
the second substrate surface (bottom) being configured to be attached to a second device component 24; and
the interposer substrate 20 being configured to support the second device component 24 on the first device component 30 and integrate the first device component 30 and the second device component 24 within a microelectronic device,
wherein the interposer substrate 20 comprises a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 2 W/cm-K (watts per centimeter Kelvin) (paragraphs 0055 & 0056 teaches SiC);
wherein the interposer substrate comprises a SiC (silicon carbide) substrate (paragraphs 0055 & 0056);
wherein the interposer substrate 20 is configured to transfer heat between the first device component 30 and the second device component 24; and
wherein the interposer substrate 20 is configured to be electrically nonconductive (title).
Farooq teaches the interposer substrate 20 is made of layers 12/14/16 wherein 12 and 16 are made of SiC (paragraphs 0055 & 0056). The present application teaches the material that meets these limitations is SiC. The fact that layer 16 is not SiC doesn’t matter because the claim uses comprising language so the broadest reasonable interpretation would include substrates made of more than just SiC. As a result the thermal conductivity limitation is met.
Concerning claim 93, Farooq (figure 13) teaches a process of implementing a thermally conductive interposer, the process comprising:
configuring an interposer substrate 20 to comprise a first substrate surface (top) and a second substrate surface (bottom);
configuring the first substrate surface (top) to be attached to a first device component 30;
configuring the second substrate surface (bottom) to be attached to a second device component 24; and
configuring the interposer substrate 20 to support the second device component 24 on the first device component 30 and integrate the first device component 30 and the second device component 24 within a microelectronic device,
wherein the interposer substrate comprises a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 2 W/cm-K (watts per centimeter Kelvin) (paragraphs 0055 & 0056 teaches SiC);
wherein the interposer substrate comprises a SiC (silicon carbide) substrate (paragraphs 0055 & 0056 teaches SiC);
wherein the interposer substrate 20 is configured to transfer heat between the first device component 30 and the second device component 24; and
wherein the interposer substrate is configured to be electrically nonconductive (title).
Farooq teaches the interposer substrate 20 is made of layers 12/14/16 wherein 12 and 16 are made of SiC (paragraphs 0055 & 0056). The present application teaches the material that meets these limitations is SiC. The fact that layer 16 is not SiC doesn’t matter because the claim uses comprising language so the broadest reasonable interpretation would include substrates made of more than just SiC. As a result the thermal conductivity limitation is met.
Pertaining to claim 94, Farooq (figure 13) teaches arranging at least one redistribution line (top and bottom of 28 are bond pads) on the first substrate surface (top) and/or the second substrate surface (bottom).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq et al., US 2024/0332121, as applied to claim 1 above.
In claim 4, though Farooq fails to specifically teach the at least one redistribution line comprises at least one passive component comprising at least one capacitor, at least one inductor, and/or at least one resistor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use at least one capacitor, at least one inductor, and/or at least one resistor in the invention of Farooq because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, though Farooq fails to specifically teach the at least one redistribution line is configured to connect to a surface mount device (SMD) , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an SMD in the invention of Farooq because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 11, though Farooq fails to specifically teach the first device component is implemented as a flip configuration comprising at least one transistor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a flip configuration comprising at least one transistor in the invention of Farooq because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Rejection over Park et al., US 2015/0115467
Claim(s) 1-19, 63, and 93-94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2015/0115467, in view of Farooq et al., US 2024/0332121.
As to claim 1, Park (figure 1) teaches a thermally conductive interposer comprising:
an interposer substrate 60 having a first substrate surface (top) and a second substrate surface (bottom);
the first substrate surface (top) being configured to be attached to a first device component 30/40a/40b;
the second substrate surface (bottom) being configured to be attached to a second device component 1; and
the interposer substrate 60 being configured to support the second device component 1 on the first device component 30/40a/40b and integrate the first device component 30/40a/40b and the second device component 1 within a microelectronic device,
wherein the interposer substrate comprises a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 1.5 W/cm-K (watts per centimeter Kelvin) (paragraph 0058 teaches 10 W/mK or more);
wherein the interposer substrate 60 is configured to transfer heat (paragraph 0003) between the first device component 30/40a/40b and the second device component 1; and
wherein the interposer substrate is configured to be electrically nonconductive (paragraph 0066 states insulating material).
Park, which teaches the use of an insulating ceramic (paragraph 0056), fails to teach the interposer substrate comprises a material having a Youngs Modulus greater than 200 GPa (Giga Pascals) (paragraph 0058 teaches 10 W/mK or more).
Farooq (paragraph 0055) teaches the use of SiC , which is a commonly used insulating ceramic, and meets the Young’s modulus limitation because the present specification states that SiC is the preferred material for the interposer substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use SiC and its Young’s modulus in the invention of Park because SiC is a conventionally known and used insulating ceramic. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 2, Park (figure 1) teaches at least one redistribution line (62 & 64) arranged on the first substrate surface (top) and/or the second substrate surface (bottom).
Concerning claim 3, Park (figure 1) teaches the at least one redistribution line (62 & 64) comprises at least one metal trace, at least one metal bond pad (paragraph 0056), at least one passive component, at least one metallic pillar, at least one solder bump, and/or at least one polyimide dielectric portion.
Pertaining to claim 4, though Park fails to teach the at least one redistribution line (62 & 64) comprises at least one passive component comprising at least one capacitor, at least one inductor, and/or at least one resistor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these components in the invention of Park because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 5, though Park fails to teach the at least one redistribution line is configured to connect to a surface mount device (SMD), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an SMD in the invention of Park because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, Park (figure 1) teaches the at least one redistribution line comprises at least one first redistribution line 62 arranged on the first substrate surface (top) and at least one second redistribution line 64 arranged on the second substrate surface (bottom).
With respect to claim 7, Park (figure 1) teaches the first device component 30/40a/40b comprises at least one transistor (memory chips 40a & 40b:paragraph 0053).
As to claim 8, Park (figure 1) teaches the first device component 30/40a/40b comprises at least one bond pad (connects 30 to 39) configured to electrically connect (through 39) to the at least one redistribution line 62.
In re claim 9, Park (figure 1) teaches the second device component 1 comprises at least one bond pad 2 configured to electrically connect (through 38) to the at least one redistribution line 64 .
Concerning claim 10, Park (figure 1) teaches the first device component 30/40a/40b comprises at least one bond pad (connects 30 to 39) configured to electrically connect (through 39) to the at least one first redistribution line 62; and wherein the second device component 1 comprises at least one bond pad 2 configured to electrically connect (through 38) to the at least one second redistribution line 64.
Pertaining to claim 11, though Park (figure 1) fails to teach the first device component 30/40a/40b is implemented as a flip configuration comprising at least one transistor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a flip configuration comprising at least one transistor in the invention of Park because it is a conventionally known and used equivalent component. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
In claims 12-18, Farooq (paragraph 0055) teaches the use of SiC, which is the preferred material of the present invention, therefore the claimed characteristics of these claims are met.
Regarding claim 19, Farooq (paragraph 0055) teaches the interposer substrate comprises a SiC (silicon carbide) substrate.
With respect to claim 63, Park (figure 1) teaches a thermally conductive interposer comprising:
an interposer substrate 60 having a first substrate surface (top) and a second substrate surface (bottom);
the first substrate surface (top) being configured to be attached to a first device component 30/40a/40b;
the second substrate surface (bottom) being configured to be attached to a second device component 1; and
the interposer substrate 60 being configured to support the second device component 1 on the first device component 30//40a/40b and integrate the first device component 30/40a/40b and the second device component 1 within a microelectronic device,
wherein the interposer substrate comprises a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 2 W/cm-K (watts per centimeter Kelvin) (paragraph 0058 teaches 10 W/mK or more);
wherein the interposer substrate 60 is configured to transfer heat (paragraph 0003) between the first device component 30/40a/40b and the second device component 1; and
wherein the interposer substrate 60 is configured to be electrically nonconductive (paragraph 0066 teaches insulating material).
Park, which teaches the use of an insulating ceramic (paragraph 0056), fails to teach the interposer substrate comprises SiC.
Farooq (paragraph 0055) teaches the use of SiC in an interposer substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use SiC in the invention of Park because SiC is a conventionally known and used insulating ceramic. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 93, Park (figure 1) teaches a process of implementing a thermally conductive interposer, the process comprising:
configuring an interposer substrate 60 to comprise a first substrate surface (top) and a second substrate surface (bottom);
configuring the first substrate surface (top) to be attached to a first device component 30/40a/40b;
configuring the second substrate surface (bottom) to be attached to a second device component 1; and
configuring the interposer substrate 60 to support the second device component 1 on the first device component 30/40a/40b and integrate the first device component 30/40a/40b and the second device component 1 within a microelectronic device,
wherein the interposer substrate 60 comprises a material having a thermal conductivity greater than 2 W/cm-K (watts per centimeter Kelvin) (paragraph 0058 teaches 10 W/mK or more);
wherein the interposer substrate 60 is configured to transfer heat (paragraph 0003) between the first device component 30/40a/40b and the second device component 1; and
wherein the interposer substrate 60 is configured to be electrically nonconductive (paragraph 0066 teaches insulating material).
Park, which teaches the use of an insulating ceramic (paragraph 0056), fails to teach the interposer substrate comprises SiC.
Farooq (paragraph 0055) teaches the use of SiC in an interposer substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use SiC in the invention of Park because SiC is a conventionally known and used insulating ceramic. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 94, Park (figure 1) teaches arranging at least one redistribution line (62 & 64) on the first substrate surface (top) and/or the second substrate surface (bottom).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach similar inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 4/23/26
Prosecution Insights