DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16-18 is/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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a step of metal deposition to form the metal layer and etching the metal layer to form metal connections,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “metal layer” of the preamble. Specifically, the preamble is understood to indicate the circuit which results from the claimed method for manufacturing has a “metal layer.” However, the limitation appears to require that the “metal layer” is changed into “metal connections” and resulting circuit would therefore be understood to no longer include the “metal layer.”
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “metal connections (P, P') in the substrate” is unclear as to the proper interpretation of “in.” Specifically, applicant’s disclosure recites the substrate is, e.g., element 100, and there are no metals layers “in” 100. Rather, metal layers appear to be on 100 or in dielectric layers above 100. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “at least one secondary layer (222) made of ceramic covering the main layer,” is unclear, in the instance of, e.g., two layers, if both secondary layers are required to be made of ceramic covering the main layer. It is further unclear because there is only one 222 shown in applicant’s drawings, and therefore it is unclear what is required by a plurality of secondary layers.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “dielectric material (110) to form the dielectric layer” is unclear because in various embodiments, included the elected embodiment of Fig. 2, the layer which appears to correspond to the claimed dielectric material/layer is not indicated at element 110.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the steps (a) to (d) are repeated to obtain different metal connections (P, P') of different levels in the electronic circuit,” is unclear as to how, when the steps are repeated, the various layers are related to the singular recitation of elements recited in the preamble. For example, the preamble recites a singular “dielectric layer,” however the repeating of steps (a) through (d) would result in plural dielectric layers and it is therefore unclear as to which dielectric layer of the repeated process corresponds to the dielectric layer of the preamble.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “connected by the respective vias (V),” is unclear as to how “the respective vias” is related to the previously recited “vias.” It is further unclear as to what correspondence is intended to be required by “connected by the respective vias,” because no previous relationship or correspondence between the vias and the metal connections has been recited.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “forming a final layer having a first TiN layer (222F), a middle layer (210F) made of aluminum or cupro-aluminum and a second TiN layer (221 F) on the dielectric layer” is unclear as to which dielectric layer. In particular, the steps (a) through (d) are required to be repeated and would result in plural dielectric layers. Thus, it is unclear to which of the plural dielectric layers the limitation refers.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “removing a part of the first TiN layer to form areas where the middle layer is exposed,” is unclear as to how removal of a singular “part” results in plural “areas.”
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a set of connecting studs (PB) of the electronic circuit for bonding wires,” is unclear as to how it is related the previously recited limitations and the preamble of the claim. Specifically, it does not appear to recite a method step, nor does it appear to be connected to a particular method step. Further, it is not recited in conjunction with a particular structure, e.g. the electronic circuit, “further comprising,” or the like.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the limitation “wherein the interconnect metal is…” is unclear as to which interconnect metal. In particular, the steps (a) through (d) are required to be repeated and would result in plural interconnect metals. Thus, it is unclear to which of the plural interconnect metals the limitation refers.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the limitation “wherein the interconnect metal is…” is unclear as to which interconnect metal. In particular, the steps (a) through (d) are required to be repeated and would result in plural interconnect metals. Thus, it is unclear to which of the plural interconnect metals the limitation refers.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “wherein the layer of dielectric material is…” is unclear as to which layer of dielectric material. In particular, the steps (a) through (d) are required to be repeated and would result in plural layers of dielectric material. Thus, it is unclear to which of the plural layers of dielectric material the limitation refers.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
It is noted that the claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights