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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the via having no waist or a waist". The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “a waist” would rely upon the ordinary meaning of the term as there is no express intent in the specification to provide a special definition for the term “waist”. The ordinary definition for the term “waist” most applicable to the situation would be “the middle section or part of an object, especially when narrower than the rest.” However, given the claim language that the via could be formed such that it has “no waist” it is unclear exactly what is required of a portion of the via to be considered “a waist”. It is unclear exactly where “a waist” must be located vertically within the via in order for it to be considered within a middle section and therefore eligible to be a waist. Further it is unclear if there are some specific dimensional requirements that “a waist” must meet, either in absolute measurements or relative to some other dimension of the via in order to be considered “a waist”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate having no footer or a footer having a maximum width less than 140% of the maximum width of the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “a footer” would rely upon the ordinary meaning of the term as there is no express intent in the specification to provide a special definition for the term “footer”. The ordinary definition for the term “footer” would be “a section of an object at the bottom or base, especially when wider than the rest”. However, given the claim language that the via could be formed such that it has “no footer” it is unclear exactly what is required of a portion of the via to be considered “a footer”. It is unclear what is required to consider a section of the via “a footer” and what distinction this would have from a section that is considered “an opening”. From the ordinary meaning of the term, a footer would be part of an opening and they could be considered the same thing.
Due to the lack of clarity outlined above, Claim 1 is considered indefinite. Claims 2-14 are indefinite due to being dependent on claim 1.
For the purpose of compact prosecution: Any section of the via that is not the endpoints of the via (and therefore can be considered within the middle of the via) that has a width that is less than the maximum width of the via, can be considered as a waist. Also, any endpoint of the via may be considered a footer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garner et al. (WO-2021050514-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Garner teaches a method of facilitating formation of a via in an inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0002] methods for forming vias in a substrate. Paragraph [0025] substrate can be glass that is inorganic), the method comprising:
applying a single-sided acidic wet etching process to a first surface of the inorganic substrate in a first state in which the inorganic substrate has a mask layer set covering a second surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraphs [0074-0076] Figure 6b substrate (element 605) has etch protection material (black areas within Figure 6b) that fully cover second surface (element 620) and leave portions of first surface (element 610) exposed. A wet etching process is conducted to etch the exposed portions of the first surface), the inorganic substrate comprising a damage track having a first end in the first surface of the inorganic substrate and a second end in the second surface of the inorganic substrate, the second surface on an opposite side of the inorganic substrate than the first surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0073] substrate comprises damage tracks that are paths from the first surface to the second surface of the substrate), and the single-sided acidic wet etching process enlarging at least a maximum width of the first end of the damage track to form a first opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0075] Figure 6c the etching process forms partial vias that form an opening in the first surface); and
applying a double-sided acidic wet etching process to the first surface and the second surface of the inorganic substrate after completion of the single-sided acidic wet etching process (Paragraphs [0083-0084] a wet etching process that etches both the first and second surfaces is conducted) and in a second state in which the inorganic substrate has had the mask layer set removed from the second surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0078] Figure 5, the etch protection material is removed prior to the second wet etching process), the double-sided acidic wet etching process enlarging at least a maximum width of the first opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate to form a second opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraphs [0082-0083] the second etching process affects both the first and second surface to form the through via, and can change the surface opening diameter, and an etching process is only able to increase the size of an opening. An increased opening size due to this etching process is displayed in Figures 6e and 6f), the double- sided acidic wet etching process resulting in an opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0084] Figure 6f am opening is made in the second surface by the second etching process), the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate having a maximum width that is less than a maximum width of the second opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0051] the via opening diameters on the first and second surface can differ, Figure 6f shows a smaller opening on the second surface), and the double-sided acidic wet etching process resulting in a via extending from the second opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate to the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0084] the through-hole via extends from the first surface to the second surface), the via having no waist or a waist within a range of 5% to 40% of a thickness of the inorganic substrate from the second surface of the inorganic substrate (Paragraph [0083] the via can contain a waist, therefore the via may also not contain a waist. Note: the term “waist” is being interpreted here as outlined in the 112 rejection above),
wherein the double-sided acidic wet etching process results in the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate having no footer or a footer having a maximum width less than 140% of the maximum width of the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate (Note: the term “footer” is being interpreted here as outlined in the 112 rejection above. Paragraph [0083] the through-hole via can have a shape that is the same or different than the partial via. Paragraph [0077] the partial via can have tapered walls. The opening in the second surface that is made by a through-hole via, where the via has tapered walls, can be considered both the claimed “opening in the second surface” and claimed “footer” and therefore the “footer” would have a maximum width that is 100% (equal to) the maximum width of the “opening in the second surface” meeting the claimed limitation).
Regarding Claim 2, Garner teaches wherein each of the single-sided acidic wet etching process and the double-sided acidic wet etching process includes application of an etching composition comprising hydrogen fluoride ("HF") (Paragraph [0075] the single sided etching process can use HF. Paragraph [0084] the double sided etching process can use HF).
Regarding Claim 3, Garner teaches wherein the inorganic substrate is a multicomponent glass substrate (Paragraph [0071] the substrate can be a multi-layer composite of multiple materials that include glass).
Regarding Claim 5, Garner teaches wherein the inorganic substrate is fused silica (Paragraph [0071] the substrate can be fused silica).
Regarding Claim 10, Garner teaches wherein the via has a conical frustrum shape (Paragraph [0083] the through-hole via can have a shape that is the same or different than the partial via. Paragraph [0077] the partial via can have tapered walls. In the situation where the through-hole via has tapered walls that end in the openings in the first and second surface, the shape of the via would be of a conical frustrum. The shape the vias as shown in Figure 6f can be considered the cross section of a conical frustrum).
Regarding Claim 11, Garner teaches wherein the damage track was formed by a laser (Paragraph [0073] the damage track is formed by a laser light source).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (WO-2021050514-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Garner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Garner teaches that the via can comprise a waist (Paragraph [0083] the via can contain a waist).
Garner fails to teach that the waist is within 5% to 40% of the thickness of the inorganic substrate from the second surface of the inorganic substrate.
However, Garner further teaches that in an embodiment where there is a waist: the depth etched by the first etching process (element Dd) can be 60-90% of the total thickness of the substrate (element Do) and partial via formed can have tapered walls (Paragraph [0077]). An example as shown in Figure 6c, is a partial via with tapered walls, in such a case the diameter of the partial via is larger at all points closer to the first surface after the maximum depth etched. Therefore, in the situation where there is a waist, and the partial via extends to 60% of the total thickness of the substrate, the waist would exist at a point less than 40% of the total thickness of the substrate from the second surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a vertical position for the waist at a level within the disclosed range of less than 40% of the total thickness of the substrate from the second surface, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of within 5% to 40% of the thickness of the substrate from the second surface. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Garner fails to teach wherein the waist of the via has a width within 75% to 100% of the maximum width of the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate.
However, Garner teaches that the waist diameter can be smaller than the diameters of either surface opening (Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a waist diameter at a level within the disclosed range of less than 100% of the diameter of the opening in the second surface, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of within 75% to 100% of the maximum width of the opening in the second surface. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 12, Garner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Garner fails to teach wherein a ratio of (a) a diameter of the second opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate to (b) a diameter of the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate is in a range of 40% to 95%, and wherein the diameter of the second opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate and the diameter of the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate are measured along parallel line segments.
However, Garner teaches that ratio of the via diameter on the first to second surface can be >1:1, which can be considered equivalent to a range of less than 100% as expressed within the claimed ratio limitation (Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a ratio of (a) a diameter of the second opening in the first surface of the inorganic substrate to (b) a diameter of the opening in the second surface of the inorganic substrate at a level within the disclosed range of less than 100%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 40% to 95%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 13, Garner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Garner fails to teach wherein, prior to applying the single-sided acidic wet etching process, a thickness of the inorganic substrate is between 300 micrometers and 10 micrometers.
However, Garner further teaches that the substrate can have a thickness of 0.1 to 1 millimeters, which is equivalent to 100 to 1000 micrometers (Paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a substrate thickness prior to the wet etching process within the disclosed range of 100 to 1000 micrometers, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 10 to 300 micrometers. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 14, Garner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Garner fails to teach wherein, after completion of the single-sided acidic wet etching process and prior to applying the double-sided acidic wet etching process, a thickness of the inorganic substrate is between 300 micrometers and 10 micrometers.
However, Garner further teaches that the substrate can have a thickness of 0.1 to 1 millimeters, which is equivalent to 100 to 1000 micrometers (Paragraph [0071]). Garner also teaches that during the method, during the single-sided etching process, the substrate is protected from etching, except at the positions where the partial vias are formed. Therefore, the thickness of the substrate would not be reduced by this etching process and the substrate would continue to have a thickness of 0.1 to 1 millimeters, which is equivalent to 100 to 1000 micrometers, after the etching process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a substrate thickness prior to the wet etching process within the disclosed range of 100 to 1000 micrometers, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 10 to 300 micrometers. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (WO-2021050514-A1), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of Guo et al. (US-20200354262-A1).
Garner teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above.
Garner fails to teach wherein each of the single-sided acidic wet etching process and the double-sided acidic wet etching process includes application of an etching composition comprising a hydrogen fluoride ("HF") concentration less than 1 M and a strong acid concentration greater than 0.8M.
Guo teaches a method that includes etching a glass article, after damage tracks have been formed in it, to create through glass vias (Paragraph [0130]). Guo teaches that the etching solution used can comprise HF with a concentration of 0.1 to 30M and a HNO3 concentration of 0.2 to 6M (Paragraph [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Garner by using the etching composition taught by Guo for both the single- and double-sided wet etching process to etch the vias.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a suitable etching composition for etching a via in a glass substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Gross et al. (US-20190256404-A1).
Garner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Garner fails to teach that the method further comprises bonding a handle substrate to the second surface of the inorganic substrate after completion of the double-sided acidic wet etching process.
Gross teaches a method of creating vias in a substrate and then bonding the substrate to a carrier for further processing steps (Paragraph [0077]). Gross teaches that the second surface of the substrate can be bonded to the carrier (Paragraph [0146] the second surface is bonded to the carrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Garner by including the additional step of bonding a handle substrate to the substrate after the wet etching process, as taught by Gross.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of bonding a handle substrate to the inorganic substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of Gross, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Arriagada et al. (US-20130337922-A1).
Modified Garner teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as outlined above.
Garner fails to teach that the handle substrate is silicon. Gross teaches that the handle substrate can be glass or other materials (Paragraph [0148]), but fails to teach silicon as one such material.
Arriagada teaches the use of a handle wafer that is bonded to another wafer (Paragraph [0027]). Arriagada teaches that a handle substrate can be silicon (Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Garner by using a handle substrate that was silicon as taught by Arriagada.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of supplying a suitable material for use as a handle substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713