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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2011/0247212 A1).
[Re claim 1] Takahashi discloses the semiconductor device packaging medium, comprising: a first layer (1) of packaging laminate substrate material including a first plurality of vias (44) formed therein; and a second layer (2) of packaging laminate substrate material having a second plurality of vias (44) formed therein, wherein the first plurality of vias stack with the second plurality of vias (see figure 2-3 and paragraph [0061]-[0068]).
[Re claim 5] Takahashi discloses the semiconductor device package wherein a via stack that includes the first plurality of vias (44) and the second plurality of vias (44) is configured to connect a first system on chip (8) positioned on a first side (upper side of 1) of the semiconductor device packaging medium to a second system on chip (8) positioned on a second side (lower side of 2) of the semiconductor device packaging medium that is opposite the first side (see figure 2 and paragraph [0059]).
[Re claim 7] Takahashi discloses the semiconductor device package wherein the first plurality of vias (44) and the second plurality of vias (44) are located only in a die (8) to die interface region that is between the first system on chip and the second system on chip and that is smaller in area than the first system on chip and the second system on chip (see figure 3).
[Re claim 8] Takahashi discloses the semiconductor device package, comprising: a first system on chip (8); a second system on chip (8); and a packaging laminate substrate (1and 2) positioned between the first system on chip and the second system on chip and including a via stack (44) that is configured to provide direct via to via connection of the first system on chip to the second system on chip (see figure 2-3, 8 and paragraph [0059], [0061]-[0068], [0100]).
[Re claim 11] Takahashi discloses the semiconductor device package wherein the via stack (44) is located only in a die to die (8) interface region that is between the first system on chip and the second system on chip and that is smaller in area than the first system on chip and the second system on chip (see figure 3).
[Re claim 16] Takahashi discloses the semiconductor device package wherein the first system on chip is bonded face-to-face with the second system on chip with the via stack providing direct via to via connection therebetween (see figure 2-3, 8 and paragraph [0059], [0061]-[0068], [0100]).
[Re claim 17] Takahashi discloses the method, comprising: forming a first layer (1) of packaging laminate substrate material including a first plurality of vias (44) formed therein; forming a second layer (2) of packaging laminate substrate material having a second plurality of vias (44) formed therein; and stacking the first plurality of vias with the second plurality of vias (see figure 2-3 and paragraph [0059], [0061]-[0068]).
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) 2-4, 9-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2011/0247212 A1).
[Re claim 2 and 18] Takahashi fails to disclose the selection of “the first plurality of vias and the second plurality of vias have a pitch in a range of forty to eighty micrometers”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 3 and 19] Takahashi fails to disclose the selection of “individual vias of the first plurality of vias and the second plurality of vias have a size in a range of ten to forty micrometers”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 4 and 20] Takahashi fails to disclose the selection of “the first plurality of vias and the second plurality of vias have corresponding via pads each having a size in a range of twenty-five to sixty micrometers”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 9] Takahashi fails to disclose the selection of “the via stack has a pitch in a range of forty to eighty micrometers”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 10] Takahashi fails to disclose the selection of “individual vias of the via stack have a size in a range of ten to forty micrometers”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1982. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
/KYOUNG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817