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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/08/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “stack” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant’s Specification states on page 6, [0044], “Each capacitor 32 comprises a stack of layers, not shown in FIG. 1”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 – 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a density greater than 700 nF/mm^2”, and the claim also recites “greater than 1 μF/mm^2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “diameter in the range from 5 μm to 20 μm”, and the claim also recites “equal to 10 μm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “height in the range from 50 μm to 200 μm”, and the claim also recites “equal to 100 μm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the" in “the first layer”. Claim 4 also states “each” in “each first region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office shall assume this was mean to read as “a first conductive region” and “each first conductive region”.
Claim 6 states “fifth conductive regions, each fifth region” and the states “a fifth region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office shall interpret a fifth region as another different region.
Claims 2, 5 and 7 – 10 are rejected due to dependency form claim 1.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuo (US 12,604,741 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuo (US 12,604,741 B2) discloses an interposer (Fig 1; 102) comprising capacitors (120) having a density greater than 700 nF/mm^2 (Column 9, lines 39-43), (advantageously greater than 1 μF/mm^2 (Column 9, lines 39-43)), the interposer (102) being adapted to being bonded (Column 5, lines 33-44 “bond”) to a chip (106) (by hybrid bonding (Column 5, lines 33-44 “bond”)).
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “interposer”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of interposer.
Claim states a “by hybrid bonding” but “hybrid bonding” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the film is formed. Thus, Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of hybrid bonding and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 10, Kuo further discloses a device (Fig 1) comprising an interposer (102) such as described according to claim 1 and at least one first chip (106) bonded (Column 5, lines 33-44 “bond”) to a first surface (F; upper surface of 102) of the interposer, the at least one first chip (106) being bonded (Column 5, lines 33-44 “bond”) to the first surface (by molecular bonding).
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “interposer”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of interposer.
Claim states a “by molecular bonding” but “molecular bonding” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the film is formed. Thus, Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of molecular bonding and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu (US 2022/0262778 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu (US 2022/0262778 A1) disclose an interposer (Fig 25,1-12; [0015] “interposers”) comprising capacitors (49; [0024]) having a density greater than 700 nF/mm^2 ([0024]), (advantageously greater than 1 μF/mm^2), the interposer being adapted to being bonded to a chip (4; [0013,0045,0060,0061] “chips”, “die”) (by hybrid bonding ([0027,0052])).
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “interposer”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of interposer.
Claim states a “by hybrid bonding” but “hybrid bonding” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the film is formed. Thus, Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of hybrid bonding and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 2, Yu further discloses the interposer (Fig 25,1-12) according to claim 1, wherein the interposer comprises: a substrate (48) crossed by first conductive vias (53,86); a first layer (44,84,88), covering the substrate, having the capacitors (49) located therein; and an interconnection network (46,72,80; note that this structure is not structurally defined in the claim language; structure shown in Fig 9 shows an interconnecting structure) comprising contact pads (72) adapted to (molecular bonding).
Claim states in the preamble of the claim, “interposer”, however the preamble does not have patentable weight and therefore the device lacks the limitation of interposer.
Claim states a “by molecular bonding” but “molecular bonding” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the film is formed. Thus, Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of molecular bonding and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 10, Yu further discloses a device (Fig 25,1-12) comprising an interposer (42; [0015]) such as described according to claim 1 and at least one first chip (4; [0013,0045,0060,0061] “chips”, “die”) bonded ([0027,0052]) to a first surface of the interposer, the at least one first chip (4) being bonded to the first surface (by molecular bonding).
Claim states a “by molecular bonding” but “molecular bonding” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the film is formed. Thus, Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of molecular bonding and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2022/0262778 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Yu discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the interposer according to claim 1, wherein the first vias have a diameter in the range from 5 μm to 20 μm, advantageously substantially equal to 10 μm, and a height in the range from 50 μm to 200 μm, advantageously substantially equal to 100 μm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interposer as disclosed by Yu, wherein the first vias have a diameter in the range from 5 μm to 20 μm, advantageously substantially equal to 10 μm, and a height in the range from 50 μm to 200 μm, advantageously substantially equal to 100 μm, in order to allow for a greater number of vias spaced within the interposer and minimize spacing between vias, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 2 [0010], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 4 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2022/0262778 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chudzik (US 2004/0108587 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Yu discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the interposer according to claim 1, wherein (the) first layer comprises first conductive regions, each first region being in contact with an end of a first via, and being coupled to a contact pad by conductive vias and conductive tracks of the interconnection network.
Chudzik (US 2004/0108587 A1) teaches of an interposer (see Fig 4a showing 240 for connection below 250,200 and above at 270), wherein (the) first layer (200) comprises first conductive regions (230,430), each first region (230,430) being in contact with an end of a first via (260), and being coupled to a contact pad (270; [0028]) by conductive vias (260) and conductive tracks (250) of an interconnection network.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interposer as disclosed by Yu, wherein (the) first layer comprises first conductive regions, each first region being in 4b
contact with an end of a first via, and being coupled to a contact pad by conductive vias and conductive tracks of the interconnection network as taught by Chudzik, in order to enable integration, adjust proximity of passive elements to relevant circuit elements, overcome difficulties associated with slower access times, provide a high density interconnect structure, enable fast electrical access and provide lower inductance and resistance (Chudzik, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yu in view of Chudzik teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Chudzik further teaches the interposer (Fig 4a) according to claim 4, wherein the first regions (230.430) are laterally surrounded by second insulating regions (220).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the interposer according to claim 1, wherein the interposer comprises: third regions having the capacitors located therein, fourth insulating regions, each capacitor being laterally surrounded by a fourth insulating region, fifth conductive regions, each fifth region being separated from one of the third regions by one of the fourth regions, and sixth conductive regions, each sixth region coupling a terminal of one of the capacitors to a fifth region, each fifth region being coupled to a contact pad by second conductive vias and conductive tracks of the interconnection network, another terminal of each capacitor being coupled to a contact pad by second conductive vias and conductive tracks of the interconnection network.
Chudzik (US 2004/0108587 A1) teaches of a board (Fig 4a-4b), wherein the interposer comprises: third regions (430’; [0035]) having the capacitors ([0035]) located therein, fourth insulating regions (420’; [0035]), each capacitor being laterally surrounded by a fourth insulating region (420’), fifth conductive regions (4080”), each fifth region (4080”) being separated from one of the third regions (430’) by one of the fourth regions (420’), and sixth conductive regions (4090’) , each sixth region (4090’) coupling a terminal of one of the capacitors to a (fifth) region, each (fifth) region being coupled to a contact pad (pad about 270) by second conductive vias (260) and conductive tracks (250) of the interconnection network (250,260,270), another terminal (4090’ of another neighboring capacitor) of each capacitor being coupled to a contact pad (2070 interfacing with another 430) by second conductive vias (another 260 in build-up layers seen in Fig 4) and conductive tracks (250) of the interconnection network.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interposer as disclosed by Yu, wherein the interposer comprises: third regions having the capacitors located therein, fourth insulating regions, each capacitor being laterally surrounded by a fourth insulating region, fifth conductive regions, each fifth region being separated from one of the third regions by one of the fourth regions, and sixth conductive regions, each sixth region coupling a terminal of one of the capacitors to a fifth region, each fifth region being coupled to a contact pad by second conductive vias and conductive tracks of the interconnection network, another terminal of each capacitor being coupled to a contact pad by second conductive vias and conductive tracks of the interconnection network as taught by Chudzik, in order to enable integration, adjust proximity of passive elements to relevant circuit elements, overcome difficulties associated with slower access times, provide a high density interconnect structure, enable fast electrical access and provide lower inductance and resistance (Chudzik, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yu in view of Chudzik teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Chudzik further teaches the interposer (Fig 3) according to claim 5, wherein each insulating region of the first layer is made of an (anodized) metal ([0031] “aluminum oxide”, “anodization”).
Claim states a “anodized” but “anodized” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the film is formed. Thus, Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of anodizing and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 8, Yu in view of Chudzik teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Chudzik further teaches the interposer (Fig 3) according to claim 6, wherein the capacitors comprise a stack of a second conductive layer (250,260), of a third insulating layer (layer shown in Fig 4 comprising lowest layers of 250,260), of a fourth conductive layer, each third region being made of an (anodized) metal ([0028]) comprising a plurality of cavities (apertures for 260) crossing said metal, the stack (260 covers and fills the cavities comprising 260) covering the walls of said cavities.
Claim states a “anodized” but “anodized” does not represent product structure but only refers to the process by which the film is formed. Thus, Claim is a product claim that recites a process step(s) of anodizing and is thus treated as a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2022/0262778 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vafi (US 5,474,458).
Regarding Claim 9, Yu discloses the limitations of the preceding claim.
Yu does not disclose the interposer according to claim 1, wherein the interposer comprises, in at least one area, a density of pads greater than 10^3 pads per mm^2.
Vafi (US 5,474,458) teaches of an interposer, wherein the interposer comprises, in at least one area, a density of pads greater than 10^3 pads per mm^2 (Column 2, lines 47-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interposer as disclosed by Yu, wherein the interposer comprises, in at least one area, a density of pads greater than 10^3 pads per mm^2 as taught by Vafi, in order to increase circuit integration levels for chips and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, in order to increase circuit integration levels and increase circuit density, which would then increase assembly capabilities. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 3 [0016], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mosley (US 2005/0136609 A1) teaches of an interposer (Fig 12,1-3; [0037] “interposer”) wherein each insulating region (27) of a first layer (10) is made of an anodized metal ([0024-0027]), wherein each insulating region of the first layer is made of an anodized metal as taught by Mosley, in order to provide high density capacitor arrays (Mosley, [0023-0025]). This could be used in a 103 Rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 pm.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights