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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2023/0352595).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, an electronic device, comprising:
a substrate (SB, [29]);
a metal composite structure (M0 (M01/M02/M03), [31]), disposed on the substrate (SB, [29]), and comprising a first metal layer (M03, [31]), wherein the first metal layer (M03, [31]) has a first opening (opening of M03, figure);
a first insulating layer (GI, [38]), disposed on the metal composite structure (M0, [31]), and having a second opening (OP1, [48]); and
a second insulating layer (ILD/PV3/PL/PV4, [46], [47]), disposed on the first insulating layer (GI, [38]), and having a third opening (OP2, [48]),
wherein, in a cross section of the electronic device, the first opening (opening of M03, figure) has a first distance (width of opening of M03, figure), the second opening (OP1, [48], figure) has a second distance (width of OP1, [48], figure), the third opening (OP2, [48], figure) has a third distance (width of OP2, [48], figure), the second distance (width of OP1, [48], figure) is greater than the third distance (width of OP2, [48], figure), and the third distance (width of OP2, [48], figure) is greater than the first distance (width of opening of M03, figure) (figure).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, an etching stop layer (BF, [37]), disposed between the metal composite structure (M0, [31]) and the first insulating layer (GI, [38]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, a first anti-warp layer (PV1, [32]), disposed between the substrate (SB, [29]) and the metal composite structure (M0, [31]); and
a second anti-warp layer (PV2, [35]), disposed between the metal composite structure (M0, [31]) and the first insulating layer (GI, [38]), wherein the second anti-warp layer (PV2, [35]) comprises a first top surface covered by the etching stop layer (BF, [37]) and a second top surface exposed by the etching stop layer (BF, [37]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, the metal composite structure (M0 (M01/M02/M03), [31]) further comprises a second metal layer (M02, [31]) and a third metal layer (M01, [31]), the second metal layer (M02, [31]) is disposed between the first metal layer (M03, [31]) and the substrate (SB, [29]), the third metal layer (M01, [31]) is disposed between the second metal layer (M02, [31]) and the substrate (SB, [29]), and the first metal layer (M03, [31]) exposes at least part of the second metal layer (M02, [31]).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, an electrical connection structure (BS, [81]), wherein the electrical connection structure (BS, [81]) is disposed in the first opening (opening of M03, figure), and the electrical connection structure (BS, [81]) comprises electroless nickel immersion gold (ENIG) ([81]).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, the second insulating layer (ILD/PV3/PL/PV4, [46], [47]) comprises:
a first insulating sub-layer (ILD, [46]), disposed on the first insulating layer (GI, [38]); and
a second insulating sub-layer (PL, [47]), disposed on the first insulating sub-layer (ILD, [46]),
wherein a thickness of the second insulating sub-layer (PL, [47]) is greater than a thickness of the first insulating sub-layer layer (ILD, [46]) (figure).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, a third insulating sub-layer (PV3, [47]), disposed between the first insulating sub-layer (ILD, [46]) and the second insulating sub-layer (PL, [47]),
wherein the thickness of the second insulating sub-layer (PL, [47]) is greater than a thickness of the third insulating sub-layer (PV3, [47]) (figure).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, the first insulating layer (GI, [38]) and the second insulating layer (ILD/PV3/PL/PV4, [46], [47]) comprise a multi-layer structure.
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, the first opening (opening of M03, figure), the second opening (OP1, [48], figure), and the third opening (OP2, [48], figure) are communicated with each other to form a through hole, and the through hole has a stepped profile (figure).
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, a manufacturing method of an electronic device, comprising:
providing a substrate (SB, [29]);
forming a metal composite structure (M0 (M01/M02/M03), [31]) on the substrate (SB, [29]), wherein the metal composite structure (M0 (M01/M02/M03), [31]) comprises a first metal layer (M03, [31]);
forming a first insulating layer (GI, [38]) on the metal composite structure (M0, [31]);
forming a first opening (OP1, [48]) in the first insulating layer (GI, [38]);
forming a second insulating layer (ILD/PV3/PL/PV4, [46], [47]) on the first insulating layer (GI, [38]);
forming a second opening (OP2, [48]) in the second insulating layer (ILD/PV3/PL/PV4, [46], [47]); and
forming a third opening (opening of M03, figure) in the first metal layer (M03, [31]),
wherein the first opening (OP1, [48]) overlaps the second opening (OP2, [48]) and the third opening (opening of M03, figure) (figure).
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses the manufacturing method of the electronic device according to claim 17 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, forming an etching stop layer (BF, [37]) between the metal composite structure (M0, [31]) and the first insulating layer (GI, [38]).
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses the manufacturing method of the electronic device according to claim 17 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, forming an electrical connection structure (BS, [81]) in the third opening (opening of M03, figure) of the first metal layer (M03, [31]).
Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses the manufacturing method of the electronic device according to claim 19 as described above.
Wu further discloses, in at least figure 1 and related text, the electrical connection structure (BS, [81]) is formed by an electroless nickel immersion gold process ([81]).
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) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2023/0352595).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as described above.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the first insulating sub-layer is 500 Å to 4000 Å, and the thickness of the second insulating sub-layer is 500 Å to 4000 Å.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thickness of the first insulating sub-layer and the second insulating sub-layer as claimed in claim 9 in order to optimize the performance of the device in .. It is noted that the selection dimension of the thickness of the first insulating sub-layer and the second insulating sub-layer as being no more than use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. See MPEP 2143 I. C. It is noted that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- the thickness of the first insulating sub-layer is 500 Å to 4000 Å, and the thickness of the second insulating sub-layer is 500 Å to 4000 Å) or any unexpected results arising therefrom.
Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses the electronic device according to claim 10 as described above.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the third insulating sub-layer is 500 Å to 4000 Å.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thickness of the third insulating sub-layer as claimed in claim 11 in order to optimize the performance of the device in .. It is noted that the selection dimension of the thickness of the third insulating sub-layer as being no more than use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. See MPEP 2143 I. C. It is noted that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- the thickness of the third insulating sub-layer is 500 Å to 4000 Å) or any unexpected results arising therefrom.
Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 that recite "the first thickness is equal to the second thickness" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Claim 6 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1, 5, and 6 that recite "the second distance of the second opening is greater than a width of the second metal layer in the cross section of the electronic device" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1, 5, and 6.
Claims 13-15 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 13 that recite "the second anti-warp layer comprises a second top surface exposed by the second insulating layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONG-HO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/TONG-HO KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811