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 .
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed May 22, 2026, claims 1, 3, 7-10 and 20 have been amended and claim 18 has been cancelled. Claims 1 through 17, 29 and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive. The amendments of the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections and the 102 rejections of the claims by Zenou. However, applicants’ arguments against the rejection of the claims by Smits are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Smits does not teach or suggest having conducted solid state bonding and that the bonding material was not heated by a laser. These arguments are not persuasive because applicant has not cited any section of Smits which clearly teaches that the bonding material was heated by the laser and that the bonding material underwent a phase change from solid to fluid during laser transfer. Instead, applicant present a general disagreement against the examiner’s interpretation of Smits. Applicant argues that solid-state bonding was not conducted by Smits because the references discloses that the bonding material remained reflowable after transfer and bonding. This section of the references supports the examiner’s position that the laser transferring was solid-state because the material being transferred was thermosetting meaning that the material was not heated and thermoset into an un-meltable material by the laser. Furthermore, applicant has not provided an argument as to what “solid-state bonding” means and how it differs from the teachings of Smit.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 22, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 2, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smits et al (U.S. Patent # 9,859,247).
In the case of claims 2 and 20, Smits teaches a method for assembling a micro-electronic component (Abstract) comprising providing a substrate 20, providing a thin film/voxel in the form of a donor film 151comprised of bonding matter and accelerating/transferring the voxel 151 onto the substrate 20 by impinging a laser beam onto a dynamic release layer (Column 3 Line 63 through Column 4 Line 5, Column 4 Lines 26-44 and Figures 2A and 2B). Smits further teaches that the bonding matter 151 had a thickness of 20 to 30 microns (Column 5 Lines 63-66) and therefore was a microfabricated thin film. Furthermore, Smits teaches that the bonding matter was not heated by the laser and remained intact keeping its curability or reflowable properties (Column 4 Lines 53-67 and Column 5 Lines 34-48) and therefore the bonding between the voxel/bonding matter was solid state bonding.
As for claim 17, Smits teaches that the bonding matter 151/voxel was provided on a carrier substrate 70 (Column 5 Lines 5-14) and therefore was provided before the acceleration/transfer.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenou et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0028141) in view of Smits et al.
In the case of claims 1-3 and 20, Zenou teaches an additive manufacturing method in the form of a method for producing an electronic device (Abstract). The method of Zenou comprised providing a substrate 22 and first and second voxels in the form of a thin film of at least one donor film 52 (Page 3 Paragraph 0031-0032). Zenou further teaches having accelerated a first voxel/thin film toward the substrate to induce bonding between the first voxel/thin film and the substrate by impinging on the donor film 52 a laser which caused a droplet 54 to fly onto substrate (Page 3 Paragraph 0033 and 0036). Furthermore, Zenou teaches that a second voxel or more was further accelerated onto the first voxel/droplet on the substrate to build up a 3D structure in the form of a pillar 74 (Page 4 Paragraph 0042 and Figures 4A-4C).
Though Zenou teaches having provided a substrate and a thin film/voxel and having accelerated the voxel onto a substrate Zenou does not teach that the bonding of the voxel and the substrate was a solid-state bonding and that neither the substrate nor the first and second voxels were heated by a laser. However, as was discussed previously, Zenou was directed toward forming an electronic device and that the voxel/thin film material was deposited onto the substrate by a LIFT process.
Smits teaches a method for assembling a micro-electronic component by a LIFT process (Abstract and Column 6 Line s35-51 and 60-62) comprising providing a substrate 20, providing a thin film/voxel in the form of a donor film 151comprised of bonding matter and accelerating/transferring the voxel 151 onto the substrate 20 by impinging a laser beam onto a dynamic release layer (Column 3 Line 63 through Column 4 Line 5, Column 4 Lines 26-44 and Figures 2A and 2B). Smits further teaches that the bonding matter was not heated by the laser and remained intact keeping its curability or reflowable properties which allowed for bond strengths of more than 1 Mpa (Column 4 Lines 53-67 and Column 5 Lines 34-48) and therefore the bonding between the voxel/bonding matter was solid state bonding wherein the voxel was not heated by a laser. Furthermore, since only the dynamic release layer was impinged with the laser the substrate on which the voxel was deposited was also not heated by a laser.
Based on the teachings of Smits, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the LIFT method of Smits as the deposition method of Zenou because Smits a known LIFT process in the art for depositing electrically conductive bonding material which provided a bond strength of more than 1 Mpa.
As for claim 4, Zenou teaches that the first voxel was shaped prior to acceleration onto the substrate by forming at least one donor film 52 on a donor substrate 50 (Page 3 Paragraph 0031).
As for claims 7 and 8, Zenou teaches that the voxel/donor film 52 comprised metal (Page 3 Paragraph 0032).
As for claims 10 and 14, Zenou teaches that the voxels/droplets 72 were stacked on each other on the substrate 22 and as shown in Figures 4B and 4C the total number of voxels 72 was 11 (Page 4 Paragraph 0042 and Figures 4B and 4C), which was within the range of 6 or more voxels.
As for claim 11, Zenou teaches that a metal coating was produced on the substrate (Pages 3-4 Paragraph 0037).
As for claims 12 and 13, though Zenou taught having produced a metal coating on the substrate Zenou did not specifically teach that the metal coating had a thickness of greater than or equal to 10 nm and a thickness of 10 microns or less. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Furthermore, Zenou teaches having deposited a sufficient amount of donor material/voxels to reach a desired thickness for the formed metal trace (Pages 3-4 Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal thickness for the metal coating/trace of Zenou in order to form a trace with a desired thickness.
As for claim 15, none of the references teach that the formed stack/pillar had a volume greater than or equal to 1 mm3. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Furthermore, Zenou teaches having deposited a sufficient volume of donor material/voxels to reach a desired thickness for the formed interconnect/pillar (Page 4 Paragraphs 0037 and 0042).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal volume for the stack/pillar formed by the process of Zenou in view of Smits in order to achieve a desired thickness/height for the deposited pillar.
As for claim 16, as was discussed previously in the rejection of claim 4, the first and second voxels in the form of the donor film 52 were provided/shaped prior to acceleration.
As for claim 19, as was discussed previously, the voxels/droplets were sequentially deposited on to the substrate to form a stack and there for the first and second voxels were sequentially transferred onto the substrate.
Claims 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenou et al in view of Smits et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al (U.S. Patent # 8,803,323).
The teachings of Zenou in view of Smits they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 5 and 6, Zenou does not specifically teach that the substrate comprised an inorganic material or glass. However, as was discussed previously, Zenou was directed toward forming an electronic device comprising fixed and interconnected dies and further teaches that the substrate of the device was a dielectric substrate (Page 2 Paragraph 0014).
Yu teaches an electronic device comprising connected dies (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 6-10) wherein the device/component comprised dielectric substrates comprised of glass (Column 1 Line 61 through Column 2 Line 15).
Based on the teachings of Yu, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the substrate of Zenou in view of Smits comprise glass because glass was a known material in the art for dielectric substrates.
As for claim 9, Yu does not teach that the voxels/droplets deposited on the substrate comprised gold. However, Yu teaches that the metal used to form the conductive interconnections comprised copper (Page 4 Paragraphs 0037 and 0042).
Yu teaches connectors in the component which included pillars comprised copper or gold (Column 2 Lies 51-57).
Based on the teachings of Yu, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used gold as the voxel of Zenou in view of Smits because gold was a known connector material in the art and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the substitution.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hsu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0025940) teaches a method for depositing metal voxels on a substrate by solid state bonding wherein a laser is not used.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 17, 19 and 20 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights