DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed on 10/02/2023.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 4, reading on figures 13a-b, 14a-b, 15a-b, 17a-b, 25a-b, & 22ab, in the reply filed on 03/26/2026, is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species 3 and Species 4 both describe using thermal or optical treatment process. This is not found persuasive because Species 4 is distinct from Species 3 because of the method of pretreating the sacrificial layer 810 by gasifying/forming air pores in the layer and then removing the sacrificial layer (see, e.g., Applicant’s Specification, fig. 25b, para.00111) which is not performed in Species 3. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is made final.
The applicant indicates that claims 1-20 read on the elected species. The examiner disagrees.
The limitation, “the strip process is performed to remove the sacrificial layer and the photoimageable layer using dissolving solution,” recited in Claim 2 reads on figures 20a-b of non-elected species 2.
Although applicant elected claims 3-4, said claims depend on now-withdrawn claim 2, and as such, is de facto withdrawn from examination by virtue of dependency to a withdrawn claim.
The limitation, “the second process comprises removing the remaining portion of the sacrificial layer and the photoimageable layer using the dissolving solution,” recited in Claim 10 reads on figures 24a-b, para.0107, of non-elected species 3.
The limitation, “and the sacrificial layer is fully removed by the first process,” recited in Claim 11 reads on figures 24a-b, para.0104, of non-elected species 3.
The limitation, “wherein the second process comprises a strip process of removing the sacrificial layer and the photoimageable layer using dissolving solution,” recited in Claim 20 reads on figures 20a-b, of non-elected species 2.
Accordingly, claims 2-4, 10, 11, & 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 12, 14, & 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5-9, 13, & 15-18 will be examined in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20230034877) in view of HOHOKim (US 20210125938).
Regarding Claim 1, Song shows a method of fabricating a semiconductor package, comprising:
providing a substrate 100 (see, e.g., fig. 2, para.0021);
forming a seed layer 230 (see, e.g., para.0021) to cover a top surface of the substrate (see, e.g., fig. 2);
sequentially stacking a sacrificial layer 400 (see, e.g., fig. 14, para.0050) and a layer 600 (see, e.g., fig. 19, para.0059) on the seed layer;
forming a penetration hole 430 & 620 (see, e.g., para.0051, para.0059) to penetrate the layer and the sacrificial layer and expose the seed layer;
forming a conductive post 220 (see, e.g., fig. 21, para.0060) in the penetration hole;
performing a first process to remove at least a portion of the sacrificial layer (see, e.g., figs. 17-18);
performing a second process to remove the layer (see, e.g., figs. 21-22);
and patterning or removing the seed layer (see, e.g., para.0062).
Song, however, fails to show, the layer 600 is a photoimageable layer.
Kim (see, e.g., figs. 2-3, para.0037, para.0039), in a similar method to Song, teaches that a photoimageable layer 215, made of acrylate n-vinylcaprolactam, would allow for a longer etching time and therefore improve the shape of the vertical sidewalls of the penetration hole 425
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the photoimageable layer of Kim in the method of Song to allow for a longer etching time and therefore improve the shape of the vertical sidewalls of the penetration hole.
Regarding Claim 5, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 1,
wherein the first process (see, e.g., fig. 17) is performed before the second process (see, e.g., fig. 22),
and at least a portion of the sacrificial layer 420 is removed by the first process (see, e.g., para.0055-0057).
Regarding Claim 6, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 5,
wherein the first process comprises a thermal treatment process or an optical treatment process performed on the sacrificial layer (see, e.g., fig. 17, para.0055-0057).
Regarding Claim 7, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 5,
wherein an adhesive strength between the sacrificial layer and the seed layer is weakened as a result of the first process being performed (see, e.g., para.0056).
Song (see, e.g., para.0056) shows an optical treatment process wherein a portion 420 of the sacrificial layer 400 is exposed to light prior to selectively removing the portion. By pretreating or exposing the portion to light the adhesion between the sacrificial layer 400 and the seed layer 230 is weakened to remove portion 420.
Regarding Claim 13, Song (see, e.g., fig. 14), in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 1,
wherein the penetration hole comprises:
a first hole 430 (see, e.g., para.0052) formed in the sacrificial layer 400 (see, e.g., fig. 15);
and a second hole formed 620 (see, e.g., para.0059) in the photoimageable layer 600,
wherein a horizontal width of the first hole is larger than a horizontal width of the second hole (see, e.g., fig. 15, fig. 19).
Claims 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20230034877) in view of HOHOKim (US 20210125938) and further in view of Lu (US 20140008657).
Regarding Claim 8, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 5,
Song, in view of Kim, however, fails to show
wherein the first process is performed to form an air pore in the sacrificial layer.
Lu (see, e.g., figs. 1e-f, para.0020-0021), in a similar method to Song, in view of Kim, teaches that a process of etching the sacrificial layer 120 by forming air pores with corrosive gas would be a suitable process to remove at least a portion of the sacrificial layer, as required by Claim 1.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of etching the sacrificial layer by forming air pores with corrosive gas of Lu in the method of Song, in view of Kim, as a suitable and obvious process to remove at least a portion of the sacrificial layer.
Regarding Claim 9, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 5,
Song, in view of Kim, however, fails to show
wherein the first process is performed to gasify at least a portion of the sacrificial layer.
Lu (see, e.g., figs. 1e-f, para.0020-0021), in a similar method to Song, in view of Kim, teaches that a process of gasifying sacrificial layer 120 with corrosive gas to then etch the sacrificial layer would be a suitable process to remove at least a portion of the sacrificial layer, as required by Claim 1.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of gasifying the sacrificial layer with corrosive gas to etch the sacrificial layer of Lu in the method of Song, in view of Kim, as a suitable and obvious process to remove at least a portion of the sacrificial layer.
Claims 15 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20230034877) in view of HOHOKim (US 20210125938).
Regarding Claim 15, Song shows a method of fabricating a semiconductor package, comprising:
providing a substrate 100 (see, e.g., fig. 2, para.0021);
sequentially stacking a sacrificial layer 400 (see, e.g., fig. 14, para.0050) and a layer 600 (see, e.g., fig. 19, para.0059) on the substrate;
forming a penetration hole 430 & 620 (see, e.g., para.0051, para.0059) to penetrate the layer 600 and the sacrificial layer;
forming a conductive post 220 (see, e.g., fig. 21, para.0060) in the penetration hole;
performing a first process on the sacrificial layer 420 (of 400) to weaken an adhesive strength between the sacrificial layer and the substrate (see, e.g., para.0056);
and performing a second process to remove the sacrificial layer and the layer 600 (see, e.g., figs. 21-22).
Song (see, e.g., para.0056) shows an optical treatment process wherein a portion 420 of the sacrificial layer 400 is exposed to light prior to selectively removing the portion. By pretreating or exposing the portion to light the adhesion between the sacrificial layer 400 and the seed layer 230 is weakened to remove portion 420.
Song, however, fails to show, the layer 600 is a photoimageable layer.
Kim (see, e.g., figs. 2-3, para.0037, para.0039), in a similar method to Song, teaches that a photoimageable layer 215, made of acrylate n-vinylcaprolactam, would allow for a longer etching time and therefore improve the shape of the vertical sidewalls of the penetration hole 425
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the photoimageable layer of Kim in the method of Song to allow for a longer etching time and therefore improve the shape of the vertical sidewalls of the penetration hole.
Regarding Claim 16, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 15,
wherein the first process comprises a thermal treatment process or an optical treatment process performed on the sacrificial layer (see, e.g., fig. 17, para.0055-0057).
Claims 17 & 18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20230034877) in view of HOHOKim (US 20210125938) and further in view of Lu (US 20140008657).
Regarding Claim 17, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 15,
Song, in view of Kim, however, fails to show
wherein the first process is performed to form an air pore in the sacrificial layer.
Lu (see, e.g., figs. 1e-f, para.0020-0021), in a similar method to Song, in view of Kim, teaches that a process of etching the sacrificial layer 120 by forming air pores with corrosive gas would be a suitable process to weaken its adhesive strength and remove at least a portion of the sacrificial layer, as required by Claim 15.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of etching the sacrificial layer by forming air pores with corrosive gas of Lu in the method of Song, in view of Kim, as a suitable and obvious process to weaken the adhesive strength of the sacrificial layer.
Regarding Claim 18, Song, in view of Kim, shows the method of claim 15,
Song, in view of Kim, however, fails to show
wherein the first process is performed to gasify at least a portion of the sacrificial layer.
Lu (see, e.g., figs. 1e-f, para.0020-0021), in a similar method to Song, in view of Kim, teaches that a process of gasifying sacrificial layer 120 with corrosive gas to then etch the sacrificial layer would be a suitable process to weaken the adhesive strength of the sacrificial layer, as required by Claim 15.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of gasifying the sacrificial layer with corrosive gas to etch the sacrificial layer of Lu in the method of Song, in view of Kim, as a suitable and obvious process to weaken the adhesive strength of the sacrificial layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on 571-272-1657. 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.
/FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights