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
Claims 10-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1,5,6,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0157702 A1 to CHOI et al., “Choi”, in view of US 2009/0321932 A1 to Gonzalez et al., “Gonzalez”.
Regarding claim 1, Choi disclose a method for manufacturing an organic interposer structure, the method comprising:
(a) providing (FIG. 4) a bearing plate (900, ¶ [0049]);
(b) applying (FIG. 4) a temporary bonding layer (910, ¶ [0049],[0050]) on the bearing plate;
(c) applying (FIG. 5) a photosensitive dielectric layer (101, “The first insulating layer 101 may be formed of or may include at least one of organic materials (e.g., photo-sensitive polymer)[…]” ¶ [0022]) on the temporary bonding layer;
(d) forming a window (TR1) on the photosensitive dielectric layer and performing metallization (111p, ¶ [0054] or FIG. 6 metal 113, ¶ [0055]) to form a circuit layer, wherein the window (TR1) forms a conducting post;
(e) repeating (FIG. 8 to FIG. 12) the steps (c) and (d) on the circuit layer until the target number of layers is achieved;
(f) de-bonding (FIG. 16) the temporary bonding layer (910), and removing the bearing plate (900) to expose the conducting post (111 is exposed on right two vias in FIG. 16);
(g) thinning (FIG. 17) the exposed conducting post to form a first pad (110b, ¶ [0070]).
Choi fails to teach additionally forming a solder mask layer on the surface of the outermost exposed circuit layer, wherein the solder mask layer exposes part of the circuit layer to form a second pad; and (h) performing a metal surface treatment on the first pad and the second pad.
Gonzalez teaches debonding (between FIG. 2N and FIG. 2O removing temporary core 2) and then (FIG. 2Q) forming a solder mask (28 and/or 32, ¶ [0057]-[0059]) on the outermost exposed circuit areas, wherein the solder mask (28 and/or 32) exposes part of the circuit layers (24 and 6 respectively) to form a second pad, and performing a metal surface treatment (coating with 36 and 38, ¶ [0058]) on the first pad and the second pads (pads 6 and 24).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the manufacturing method of Choi by forming solder resists on both sides of the interposer after debonding as taught by Gonzalez in order to either 1) provide additional structural rigidity and appropriate thermal properties (Gonzalez ¶ [0006],[0065]) and/or allows for both sides of the core to be accessible (Gonzalez ¶ [0007],[0034],[0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, and Choi further teaches wherein the step (c) comprises:
applying a photosensitive dielectric material (101, ¶ [0022]) on the temporary bonding layer to form the photosensitive dielectric layer; and
forming a window (TR1) on the photosensitive dielectric layer by means of exposure and development (“The patterning of the first insulating layer 101 may be performed through exposing and developing processes.” ¶ [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, and Choi further teaches wherein the step (d) comprises:
applying (FIG. 5) a metal seed layer (111p, ¶ [0053]) on the photosensitive dielectric layer (101);
applying (FIG. 6) a photoresist layer (RP1 with openings OP1, ¶ [0054]) on the surface of the metal seed layer (111p) and forming a circuit layer pattern by exposure and development;
electroplating (FIG. 6 layer 113, “The conductive patterns 113 may be formed by an electroplating process using the first seed layer 111p as an electrode” ¶ [0055]) the circuit layer pattern to form the conducting post and the circuit layer;
removing (FIG. 7) the photoresist layer; and
etching (FIG. 7) the exposed metal seed layer (exposed portions of 111p are etched to form 111).
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, and Choi further teaches (e.g. FIG. 20) wherein the first pad is configured to connect to a chip (chip 200, ¶ [0067]), and the second pad is configured to connect to a package substrate (800, ¶ [0087]).
Claims 2-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0157702 A1 to CHOI et al., “Choi”, in view of US 2009/0321932 A1 to Gonzalez et al., “Gonzalez”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0053715 A1 to ISHIHARA et al., “Ishihara”.
Regarding claim 2, although Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, Choi fails to clearly teach wherein the bearing plate (900, ¶ [0049]) is made of glass or acrylic.
Ishihara teaches wherein a bearing plate (support plate 7) is made of glass epoxy (¶ [0045]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the method of Choi in view of Gonzalez by using a bearing plate made of glass epoxy as taught by Ishihara in order to select a rigid material which supports the laminate such that warpage or deflection can be suppressed (Ishihara ¶ [0045]) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 3, although Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, Choi fails to clearly teach wherein the bearing plate (900, ¶ [0049]) has a thickness of 200-1000 µm.
Ishihara teaches wherein a support plate (support plate 7) has a thickness of 100 μm or more and 500 μm or less (¶ [0045]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the method of Choi in view of Gonzalez by using a bearing plate having a thickness within the claimed range as taught by the overlapping range of Ishihara in order to select a thickness which supports the laminate such that warpage or deflection can be suppressed (Ishihara ¶ [0045]) and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), wherein in the instant case the thickness of the bearing plate determines the thickness of the structure used during building up of the laminate making it a result effective variable, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), and MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Ranges II. OPTIMIZATION OF RANGES A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation B. Only Result-Effective Variables Can Be Optimized.
Regarding claim 4, although Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, Choi fails to clearly teach wherein the temporary bonding layer (910) is elected from the group consisting of an ultraviolet decomposed adhesive tape, a pyrolytic adhesive tape, and a weak adhesive tape.
Ishihara teaches wherein a temporary bonding layer (8) may be a material which does not develop a strong adhesive force, or loses adhesiveness due to a specific treatment such as ultraviolet irradiation or heating (¶ [0046]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the method of Choi in view of Gonzalez by selecting the adhesive of Ishihara in order to prevent a strong adhesive bond from being formed to more easily separate the laminate from the bearing plate (Ishihara ¶ [0046],[0076]) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 8, although Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, Gonzalez fails to clearly state wherein the solder mask layer (28 and/or 32, ¶ [0057]-[0059]) is a photosensitive dielectric layer.
Ishihara teaches wherein a solder resist layer (5) is a photosensitive epoxy resin (¶ [0044]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the method of Choi in view of Gonzalez by using a photosensitive dielectric as the solder mask layer as taught by Ishihara in order to prevent short-circuit defects with high probability (Ishihara ¶ [0044]) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0157702 A1 to CHOI et al., “Choi”, in view of US 2009/0321932 A1 to Gonzalez et al., “Gonzalez”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2026/0198362 A1 to ZLUC et al., “Zluc”.
Regarding claim 7, although Choi in view of Gonzalez yields the manufacturing method of claim 1, Gonzales fails to clearly teach wherein the metal surface treatment in step (h) comprises organic solderability preservative (OSP), electroless nickel electroless palladium immersion gold (ENEPIG), and ball grid array (BGA).
Zluc teaches applying a surface finish to exposed electrically conductive surface portions which may include Organic Solderability Preservative (OSP) or Electroless Nickel Immersion Palladium Immersion Gold (ENIPIG) (¶ [0070]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the method of Choi in view of Gonzalez by adding OSP or ENIPIG as taught by Zluc in order to protect surfaces from undesirably oxidation (Zluc ¶ [0070]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2012/0006591 A1 to Kaneko et al. teaches a bearing plate (50) and forming a post (Fig. 3(c) to 3(f)) and a laminate (Fig. 4(a) to 4(e)), debonding (Fig. 4(f)) which includes a step of thinning (Fig. 4(f)) the post.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)272-1731. 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.
/Eric A. Ward/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights