DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Election on 12/1/2025.
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
Claims 10 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/2025.
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) 1, 4 – 6, and 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2018/0090461) in view of Schmidt (WO 2002/189283, as cited by Applicant, but using the 371 US 2024/0170428 for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka et al. teaches a microelectronic device, comprising (Figure 3 – 4):
an electronic component 4 (Paragraph 0047, “semiconductor chip 4”);
a copper structure 41 (Paragraph 0071, “Cu electrode layer”) over the electronic component 4, the copper structure 41 including primarily copper; and
a corrosion barrier 50 (Paragraph 0087, “outer-surface insulating film”) directly on the copper 41, the corrosion barrier 50 including primarily cuprous oxide (“Cu2O”), wherein the corrosion barrier 50 is exposed at an exterior surface of the microelectronic device 4.
Tanaka et al. does not teach that the copper structure 41 has an average grain size greater than 1 micron. Schmidt teaches that it is well known for copper structures to have an average grain size greater than 1 micron (Figure 2, where “crystal size” corresponds to grain size, also Paragraph 0099 teaches grain sizes near 3.5 microns).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tanaka et al. such that the copper structure 41 has an average grain size greater than 1 micron in the manner as taught by Schmidt since it is well known that larger grain sizes can improve conductivity. Also, with respect to the grain size of the copper structure, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices before the filing date of the claimed invention to determine the workable or optimal value for the grain size through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because grain size is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result- effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka et al. teaches that the corrosion barrier 50 has a thickness larger than 0 nm and smaller than 200 nm (Paragraph 0127). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of 0.5 nm to 3 nm since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 1976, see also MPEP §2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka et al. teaches that the copper structure 41 includes a metal cap layer 55 on the copper (Paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka et al. teaches that the metal cap layer 55 includes primarily nickel (Paragraph 0094, “nickel layer”).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka et al. teaches that the copper structure 41 includes a cap portion 52 (Paragraph 0093, “pad electrode layer”) that extends laterally past vertical sidewalls of the copper structure 41.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka et al. further teaches encapsulation material 6 contacting the copper structure 41 (Paragraph 0039, “sealing resin”).
Claim(s) 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. in view of Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2022/0228268).
Regarding claims 2 - 3, Tanaka et al. does not teach that the copper structure includes carbon distributed in the copper where an average carbon content of the copper structure is less than 20 parts per million (ppm) by weight. Carbon is a well known impurity of electroplated copper, where Jin et al. teaches (at least Abstract, Paragraph 0056 - 0057) that the carbon content can be controlled in copper such that it is 2 – 20 ppm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copper structure of Tanaka et al. such that it has a carbon distribution of less than 20 ppm since a carbon content of over 20 ppm increases residual stress and defects. Please note that although Jin et al. teaches a carbon content of 2 – 20 ppm, it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, 1976, see also MPEP §2144.05 (I)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. in view of Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Theuss et al. (US 2017/0011982).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka et al. does not mention that the electronic component 4 can be a sensor component. Theuss et al. teaches a similar packaging configuration 1200 (Figure 14, Paragraph 0132) where an electronic component 100 is in package 1200 and can be a sensor component (Paragraph 0060). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tanaka et al. such that the electronic component 4 is a sensor component since it is well known that sensor components also need packaging.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kouno et al. (US 2003/0230804) also teaches cuprous oxide corrosion barrier 15 on a copper structure 13 (Figure 1). Koduri et al. (US 2022/0155109) teaches a copper structure 600 surrounding a sensing region, but does not teach a cuprous oxide corrosion barrier layer (Figure 9A). Ru (US 2013/0155629) teaches a copper structure 14 with a corrosion barrier 15 (Figure 9) but does not teach cuprous oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights