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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 30, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed January 30, 2026 claims 1 and 38 have been amended, claims 45 through 52 are new and claims 34 and 36 have been cancelled. Claims 1 through 6, 35 and 37 through 52 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously cited prior art and new prior art necessitated by the amendments to the claims. As will be discussed further within this Office Action, claim 1 is rejected in view of the previously cited prior art and Wang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0034379) which teaches that it was known to have a mesh in unblocked regions of a stencil during deposition. Furthermore, claim 38 is anticipated by previously cited prior art Hanke (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0083977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 38-44, 46, 47 and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 38 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the claim does not require removing the patterned structure while leaving the material within the openings. The specification of the present application as originally filed does not disclose an embodiment wherein the patterned structure was left on the semiconductor construction as encompassed by claim 38.
Claim 46 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide full support for the limitation of “the tool comprises a controller”. The only disclosure within the specification for a spreading tool comprising a controller is Paragraph 0061 of the specification which discloses that a bar 47 was coupled with a control mechanism 49 which moved the base across the patterned screening structure 40. This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support for the broader limitation of “the tool comprises a controller”.
Claim 47 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide support for the patterned screening structure comprising “at least one of” a flexible metal foil, a silicate-containing material or a semiconductor material. Though Paragraph 0057 of the specification of the present application discloses that the patterned screening structure was formed from a flexible metal foil, a silicate-containing material or a semiconductor material the specification does not provide support for the patterned screening structure being comprised of a combination of these materials as encompassed by claim 47.
Claim 49 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide support for the patterned screening structure comprising “at least one additional composition comprising” a flexible metal foil or a semiconductor material. Though Paragraph 0057 of the specification of the present application discloses that the patterned screening structure was formed from a flexible metal foil, a silicate-containing material or a semiconductor material the specification does not provide support for the patterned screening structure being comprised of a combination of these materials as encompassed by claim 49.
Claim 50 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide full support for the limitation of “the tool comprises a controller”. The only disclosure within the specification for a spreading tool comprising a controller is Paragraph 0061 of the specification which discloses that a bar 47 was coupled with a control mechanism 49 which moved the base across the patterned screening structure 40. This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support for the broader limitation of “the tool comprises a controller”.
Claim 51 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide full support for the limitation of “the providing of the mass of the material through the patterned structure comprises utilizing a controller”. The only disclosure within the specification for utilizing a controller is Paragraph 0061 of the specification which discloses that a bar 47 was coupled with a control mechanism 49 which moved the base across the patterned screening structure 40. This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support for the broader limitation of “the providing of the mass of the material through the patterned structure comprises utilizing a controller”.
Claim 52 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification of the present application as originally filed does not provide support for the patterned screening structure comprising “at least one of” a flexible metal foil, a silicate-containing material or a semiconductor material. Though Paragraph 0057 of the specification of the present application discloses that the patterned screening structure was formed from a flexible metal foil, a silicate-containing material or a semiconductor material the specification does not provide support for the patterned screening structure being comprised of a combination of these materials as encompassed by claim 52.
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 38, 41, 43 and 51 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanke et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0083977).
In the case of claim 38, Hanke teaches a method for forming material within openings extending into a semiconductor construction comprising filling holes in a semiconductor substrate with a polymer paste (Abstract). The method of Hanke comprised providing a semiconductor construction in the form of a semiconductor substrate 1 having a plurality of opening/holes 3 extending into the substrate 1 (Page 1 Paragraph 0010 and Figure 1a). Hanke further teaches having placed a patterned screening structure in the form of a stencil 9 onto the surface of the substrate 1 wherein the stencil 9 had blocked regions and unblocked regions/openings 12 which aligned with the openings/holes 3 of the substrate 1. Hanke further teaches that a mass of material in the form of a polymer paste 8 was provided onto the patterned screening structure 9 followed by spreading the paste/material 8 across the structure 9 with a tool/squeegee 10 which pressed the pate/material 8 through the unblocked regions 12 and into the openings 3 of the substrate 1. After spreading the paste/material into the openings 3 the patterned screening structure/stencil 9 was removed leaving the material/paste in the openings 3. (Pages 1-2 Paragraphs 0013-0016 and Figures 1d and 1e)
Hanke further teaches that the volume of material/paste was substantially equal to the volume of the openings (Page 3 Claims 12-14) and therefore no overfill was left in the openings.
As for claim 41, Hanke teaches that the semiconductor construction comprised an adhesive-promoting layer in the holes/openings 3 in the form of an interface layer 7 which increased the adherence of the paste in the openings 3 (Page 1 Paragraph 0012).
As for claim 43, Hanke teaches that the openings were holes having a diameter (Page 1 Paragraph 0003) and therefore had in the horizontal cross section a circular shape.
As for claim 51, Hanke teaches having utilized a controller in the form of a magnetic device to provide the mass of material/paste through the patterned structure/stencil (Page 2 Paragraph 0025-0026).
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, 6 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al in view of Wang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0034379).
In the case of claim 1, Hanke teaches a method for forming material within openings extending into a semiconductor construction comprising filling holes in a semiconductor substrate with a polymer paste (Abstract). The method of Hanke comprised providing a semiconductor construction in the form of a semiconductor substrate 1 having a plurality of opening/holes 3 extending into the substrate 1 (Page 1 Paragraph 0010 and Figure 1a). Hanke further teaches having placed a patterned screening structure in the form of a stencil 9 onto the surface of the substrate 1 wherein the stencil 9 had blocked regions and unblocked regions/opening 12 which aligned with the openings/holes 3 of the substrate 1. Hanke further teaches that a mass of material in the form of a polymer paste 8 was provided onto the patterned screening structure 9 followed by spreading the paste/material 8 across the structure 9 with a tool/squeegee 10 which pressed the pate/material 8 through the unblocked regions 12 and into the openings 3 of the substrate 1. After spreading the paste/material into the openings 3 the patterned screening structure/stencil 9 was removed leaving the material/paste in the openings 3. (Pages 1-2 Paragraphs 0013-0016 and Figures 1d and 1e)
Though Hanke teaches that the stencil/patterned screening structure had unblocked regions 12 Hanke did not teach that the unblocked regions comprised a mesh.
Wang teaches a method for stencil coating a workpiece wherein a mass of material/ink was provided into an opening/through hole 21 of the workpiece. Wang further teaches that the stencil 30 comprised unblocked regions 31 comprising a mesh which aligned with the through hole 21 of the workpiece (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph s0012 and 0014).
Based on the teachings of Wang, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a mesh in the unblocked regions of the stencil/patterned screening structure of Hanke because this was known configuration in the art for stencils used in stencil coating.
As for claim 6, Hanke teaches that the material/polymer paste 8 included dielectric material (Page 1 Paragraph 0014).
As for claim 45, Hanke further teaches that the volume of material/paste was substantially equal to the volume of the openings (Page 3 Claims 12-14) and therefore no overfill was left in the openings.
Claims 2 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chan et al (U.S. Patent # 6,592,943).
The teachings of Hanke in view of Wang as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 2, Hanke does not teach that the stencil/patterned screening structure comprised a flexible metal foil or a flexible polymeric material.
Chan teaches a method for forming a semiconducting device by stencil printing (Abstract and Column 2 Lines 47-60) wherein the stencil used were flexible and were formed from polymeric or metal material (Column 9 Line 54 through Column 10 Line 19).
Based on the teachings of Chan, 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 a flexible metal or polymeric stencil/patterned screening structure in the process of Hanke in view of Wang because these were known types of stencils in the art used during semiconductor manufacturing.
As for claim 4, Chan teaches a stencil embodiment comprised of metal layer and polymeric layers and was therefore made from a semiconductor material (Column 9 Line 62 through Column 10 Line 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zierath et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0270703).
The teachings of Hanke in view of Wang as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 5, Hanke does not teach that at least one of the openings extends to a staircase region. However, Hanke was directed to forming interconnects in an electronic device (Page 1 Paragraphs 0001 and 0009).
Zierath teaches a method for forming interconnects in an electronic device (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0001) wherein the interconnects were formed in trenches/openings having a staircase region in the form of a dual damascene structure (Page 4 Paragraph 0031 and Figure 2A).
Based on the teachings of Zierath, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed at least one opening of the semiconductor construction of Hanke in view of Wang to have a staircase region because it was known in the art to form interconnects in staircase/dual damascene openings.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Wang.
The teachings of Hanke as it applies to claim 38 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 39, it is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Zierath et al.
The teachings of Hanke as it applies to claim 38 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 42, it is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Chan et al.
The teachings of Hanke as it applies to claim 38 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 52, it is rejected for the same reasons discussed previously in the rejection of claims 2 and 4.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freitag (U.S. Patent # 5,553,538).
The teachings of Hanke in view of Wang as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 46, Hanke does not teach that the tool/squeegee used to spread the paste/mass of material across the patterned screening structure/stencil comprised a controller.
Freitag teaches method for depositing a mass of material/paste using screen printing while forming a printed circuit board wherein the paste was deposited through a stencil and spread across the stencil using a squeegee (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 7-9). Freitag teaches that the squeegee comprised a controller which was used to control the speed and pressure of the squeegee across the stencil (Column 3 Lines 6-35).
Based on the teachings of Freitag, 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 tool/squeegee of Hanke in view of Wang comprise a controller in order to control the speed and pressure of the squeegee across the stencil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35, 37 and 48 are allowed.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 40, 44, 47, 49 and 50 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the case of claims 40 and 44, Hanke does not fairly teach or suggest that the semiconductor construction comprised a horizontally extending layer of adhesion-reducing layer.
In the case of claims 3, 35, 37 and 47-50, Hanke taught having filled the openings of a semiconductor construction using a patterned screening structure/stencil placed on the construction. However, Hanke did not fairly teach of suggest that the patterned screening structure included a silicate containing material.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 38 through 47 and 49 through 52 have been rejected, claim 3 has been objected and claims 35, 37 and 48 have been allowed.
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