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 without traverse of Invention I (encompassing claims 11-19) in the reply filed on 3/23/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/26/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 318. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 11-19 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.
Claim 11 states the particle size is “in a nanometer range” (line 6). It is unclear to the examiner what is encompassed by “a nanometer range.” For instance, does “a nanometer range” mean less than 1 nm or 1 nm – 1000 nm or 1 nm – 1010 nm, or some other range altogether? Since “a nanometer range” is not a specifically defined term of art in the semiconductor industry and has not been specifically defined in the Specification or elsewhere in the claim(s), the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets that “a nanometer range” means 1 nm – 1000 nm. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
Claims 12-19 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 11.
Claim 17 states the specified drop size “includes a maximum of 1 µl.” Because of the word “includes”, it is unclear if the specified drop size includes a size of 1 µl or if the specified drop size has a maximum size of 1 µl. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
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) 11, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viswanathan et al. (U.S. 2018/0153030 A1; “Viswanathan”).
Regarding claim 11, Viswanathan discloses a method of filling a rear-side cavity (118, Fig. 6) of a semiconductor assembly, the rear-side cavity (116, Fig. 6) having a metal layer (124, Fig. 6) ([0040]), the method comprising the following steps:
Dispensing a suspension with a specified drop size into the rear-side cavity of the semiconductor assembly using a drop applicator ([0040], [0021]-[0022]), the suspension including a metal-containing powder and a liquid dispersion medium ([0022]), the metal-containing powder having a particle size in a nanometer range ([0025]); and
Heating the semiconductor assembly to a temperature of less than 500°C, wherein the metal-containing powder is sintered ([0027]).
Regarding claim 16, Viswanathan discloses the metal layer (124, Fig. 6) ([0040], [0024]) of the rear-side cavity and the metal-containing powder ([0040], [0024]) of the suspension includes the same metal.
Regarding claim 18, Viswanathan discloses the metal-containing powder has a particle size of less than 1 µm ([0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Viswanathan discloses the metal-containing powder includes copper ([0024]).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tonai et al. (U.S. 2003/0157272 A1; “Tonai”).
Regarding claim 11, Tonai discloses a method of filling a rear-side cavity (3, Fig. 1) of a semiconductor assembly, the rear-side cavity (3, Fig. 1-2) having a metal layer (14, Fig. 2) ([0036]-[0041], [0047]-[0048]), the method comprising the following steps:
Dispensing a suspension with a specified drop size into the rear-side cavity of the semiconductor assembly using a drop applicator ([0138]), the suspension including a metal-containing powder and a liquid dispersion medium ([0067], [0088]), the metal-containing powder having a particle size in a nanometer range ([0070], Table 1); and
Heating the semiconductor assembly to a temperature of less than 500°C, wherein the metal-containing powder is sintered ([0103]).
Regarding claim 12, Tonai discloses a vaporization of the liquid dispersion medium takes place between the dispensing of the suspension and the heating of the semiconductor device ([0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 13, Tonai discloses the dispensing of the suspension and the heating of the semiconductor assembly take place simultaneously ([0116]).
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan et al. (U.S. 2018/0153030 A1; “Viswanathan”) as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17, Viswanathan discloses dispensing the suspension with a specified drop size ([0022]) but does not disclose the specified drop size has a maximum size of 1 µl. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a specified drop size having a maximum size of 1 µl, since 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights