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
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, 2, 5, 8, 14, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al, US Patent 9,978,729 (newly submitted).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a package substrate, comprising:
a first metallization layer 322 comprising a plurality of first metal interconnects having a first pitch in a first direction (the first pitch is labeled “A”);
a capacitor package, comprising:
a capacitor 330, comprising:
a capacitor substrate (area of 330 between 332) comprising a first surface (which is the bottom surface in figure); and
a plurality of capacitor terminals 332 having a second pitch (the second pitch is labeled “B”) in the first direction different than the first pitch (the difference between the first and second pitch are shown in figure above); and
a redistribution layer (RDL) substrate 328 directly adjacent to the first surface of the capacitor substrate, the RDL substrate comprising:
a first RDL comprising a plurality of first RDL interconnects (as labeled above) each directly coupled to a capacitor terminal of the plurality of capacitor terminals and each coupled to a first metal interconnect of the plurality of first metal interconnects (figure 1A).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the first pitch is smaller than the second pitch (as shown in figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches each first RDL interconnect of the plurality of first RDL interconnects has a first axis intersecting the first metal interconnect in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (as arrow “C” in figure above).
Regarding claim 8, Lin teaches the plurality of capacitor terminals comprises a plurality of first interconnect bumps (the structure that connects 330 to 328).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lin teaches the package substrate comprises a coreless package substrate and the package substrate is at least partially embedded in the first metallization layer (figure 1a).
Regarding claim 17, Lin teaches a method of fabricating a package substrate, comprising:
providing a first metallization layer 322 comprising a plurality of first metal interconnects having a first pitch in a first direction (the first pitch is labeled “A”); and
providing a capacitor package, comprising:
providing a capacitor 330, comprising:
forming a capacitor substrate (area of 330 between 332) comprising a first surface (which is the bottom surface in figure); and
forming a plurality of capacitor terminals 332 having a second pitch (the second pitch is labeled “B”) in the first direction different than the first pitch (the difference between the first and second pitch are shown in figure above); and
forming a redistribution layer (RDL) substrate directly adjacent to the first surface of the capacitor substrate, comprising:
forming a first RDL comprising a plurality of first RDL interconnects 328 directly adjacent to the first surface of the capacitor substrate; and coupling each first RDL interconnect of the plurality of first RDL interconnects directly to a capacitor terminal of the plurality of capacitor terminals and to a first metal interconnect of the plurality of first metal interconnects (figure 1A).
Regarding claim 18, Lin teaches the first pitch is smaller than the second pitch (figure 1A).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al, US Patent 9,978,729.
Regarding claim 3, Lin fails to teach the first pitch is 130 micrometers (mm) and the second pitch is 150 mm.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum pitch size involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether 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 tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
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, Lin fails to teach the first pitch is larger than the second pitch.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum pitch size involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether 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 tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
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 19, Lin fails to teach the first pitch is larger than the second pitch.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum pitch size involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether 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 tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
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).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0005381 (as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 15, Lin fails to teach the capacitor comprises a silicon capacitor.
However, Lu teaches that silicon capacitors are used in electronic devices [0028]. Compared with a multilayer ceramic capacitor (MLCC), the 3D silicon capacitor has advantages of small size, high precision, strong stability, long lifetime, and the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lu with that of Lin because3D silicon capacitor has advantages of small size, high precision, strong stability, long lifetime over using a MLCC device.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chakravorty et al, US Patent Application Publication 2004/0238942 (as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 16, Lin fails to teach integrated into a device selected from a group consisting of: a set top box; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a fixed location data unit; a mobile location data unit; a global positioning system (GPS) device; a mobile phone; a cellular phone; a smart phone; a session initiation protocol (SIP) phone; a tablet; a phablet; a server; a computer; a portable computer; a mobile computing device; a wearable computing device; a desktop computer; a personal digital assistant (PDA); a computer monitor; a television; a tuner; a radio; a satellite radio; a music player; a digital music player; a portable music player; a digital video player; a video player; a digital video disc (DVD) player; a portable digital video player; an automobile; a vehicle component; an avionics system; a drone; and a multicopter.
However, it is generally-known in the art that the device of Lin may be used in the different electronic components. Chakravorty teaches that some these components, such as a cellular phone, a computer, and a music player (See [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chakravorty with that of Lin because it is generally-known in the art that the device of Lin may be used in the different electronic components
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,7, 9-12, and 20-24 are 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.
Claims 25-30 are allowed, The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 25, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...a die comprising a plurality of die interconnects having the first pitch in the first direction and each coupled to a first metal interconnect of the plurality of first metal interconnects...” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 26-30 are dependent upon claim 25 and are therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 25, Lin teaches a integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising:
a package substrate, comprising:
a first metallization layer 332 comprising a plurality of first metal interconnects having a first pitch (the first pitch is labeled “A”) in a first direction (which is the bottom surface in figure); and
a capacitor package, comprising:
a capacitor 330, comprising:
a capacitor substrate (area of 330 between 332) comprising a first surface (which is the bottom surface in figure);
and a plurality of capacitor terminals 332 having a second pitch (the second pitch is labeled “B”) in the first direction different than the first pitch; and
a redistribution layer (RDL) substrate directly adjacent to the first surface of the capacitor substrate, the RDL substrate comprising:
a first RDL comprising a plurality of first RDL interconnects 328 each directly coupled to a capacitor terminal of the plurality of capacitor terminals and each coupled to a first metal interconnect of the plurality of first metal interconnects (figure 1A)
Lin fails to teach a die comprising a plurality of die interconnects having the first pitch in the first direction and each coupled to a first metal interconnect of the plurality of first metal interconnects. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of these claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 25-30 have been found to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
