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 with traverse of Group I and Species A, claims 1-6, 9 and 10, in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search burden because “there is substantial overlap of common elements” and “a significant portion of the patents classified in either one of the alleged Groups/Species would naturally be found when searching another of the alleged Groups/Species.” This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and/or examination burden at least because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). The fact that some patents classified in one would be found when searching the other does not address either the burden of a complete and comprehensive search of the groups/species, nor does it address the burden associated with other means of search which is not classification, such as text search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7, 8 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 5/21/2026.
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) 10 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 10, the limitation “in each of areas penetrating the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer, the via is in contact with the first insulating layer or the second insulating layer,” is unclear because it appears to require the via to be contacting both the first and second insulating layer in the area penetrating the first insulating layer, and contacting both the first and second insulating layer in the area penetrating the second insulating layer.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
(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, 3, 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 20150187701; herein “Tsai”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses in Fig. 21 and related text a wiring structure comprising:
a first wiring layer comprising a first via pad (106b, see [0020]);
a first insulating layer (104b, see [0020]) covering the first wiring layer;
a second wiring layer (106a, see [0019]) on the first insulating layer and comprising a second via pad defining a hole;
a second insulating layer (104a, see [0019]) on the first insulating layer and covering the second wiring layer;
a third wiring layer on the second insulating layer and comprising a third via pad (portion of 120 having W3, see [0018]); and
a via (portion of 120 having W1 and W2) in integrally penetrating the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer, filling the hole of the second via pad, and connecting the first via pad, the second via pad, and the third via pad to each other,
wherein the first insulating layer covers upper and side surfaces of the first via pad (see Fig. 21), and
a diameter of the first via pad is smaller than a diameter of the second via pad and a diameter of the third via pad (see Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai further discloses an average diameter of the via in an area penetrating the first insulating layer (e.g. W1) is smaller than an average diameter of the via in an area penetrating the second insulating layer (e.g. W2).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai further discloses a diameter of the via is constant in an area filling the hole of the second via pad (e.g. constant over the area of the top half of the pad, see Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 9, Tsai further discloses the third via pad is integrated with the via (see Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai further discloses in each of areas penetrating the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer, the via is in contact with the first insulating layer or the second insulating layer (see Fig. 21).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Lin et al. (US 20190157208; herein “Lin”).
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 5, Tsai does not explicitly disclose
the diameter of the first via pad ranges from 65 µm to 75 µm;
a diameter of the via ranges from 40 µm to 50 µm at the upper surface of the first via pad;
a diameter of the via ranges from 45 µm to 55 µm in an area filling the hole of the second via pad.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a wiring structure wherein
a diameter of the via pad ranges from 10 µm to 80 µm (see [0028]);
a diameter of the via ranges from 10 µm to 80 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsai by having the diameter of the pad and the diameters of the via within the claimed range in order to allow for application of the via and pad structure to be a proper size for applications such as ground or power vias to a chip (see Lin [0030]). The limitations “a diameter of the via ranges from 40 µm to 50 µm at the upper surface of the first via pad,” and “a diameter of the via ranges from 45 µm to 55 µm in an area filling the hole of the second via pad,” are taught by the combination of the range of diameters shown by Lin, and the via having a diameter at the upper surface of the first via pad and in an area filling the hole of the second via pad, as shown by Tsai.
Note that the ranges disclosed by Lin overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the diameters of the pad and via to be a result effective variable affecting the electrical characteristics of the contact, the size of the device, and the ease and cost of manufacture of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Tsai to have the diameters within the claimed range in order to achieve desired electrical characteristics for the appropriate application of the via while balancing device size and ease/cost of manufacture, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230034728, US 20090134432, and US 20150206810 are each cited for showing all of the all of the claimed features of the independent claim.
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