CTNF 18/700,432 CTNF 86192 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Shiono et al (US Publication No. 2004/0217455) . PNG media_image1.png 385 490 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Shiono discloses a via comprising: a substrate Fig 5 or Fig 7, 41 comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface Fig 5 , the substrate comprising a through-hole Fig 5 or Fig 7, 18 extending from the first surface to the second surface Fig 5 or Fig 7 ; and a porous electrically conductive material Fig 5 or Fig 7, 30 extending through the through-hole Fig 5 or Fig 7 , the porous electrically conductive material comprising a first porosity in a central region ¶0118-0120 of the through-hole and a second porosity less than the first porosity proximate the first surface and the second surface of the substrate ¶0121 Fig 5 or Fig 7. Regarding claim 2, Shiono discloses wherein the porous electrically conductive material comprises a sintered electrically conductive paste ¶0120 comprising electrically conductive particles comprising a substantially uniform size ¶0133 Fig 7 . Regarding claim 3, Shiono discloses wherein the substrate comprises a glass, a glass-ceramic, or a ceramic ¶0096. Regarding claim 9, Shiono discloses via comprising: a substrate Fig 5 or Fig 7, 41 comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface Fig 5 or Fig 7 , the substrate comprising a through-hole extending from the first surface to the second surface Fig 5 or Fig 7 ; a porous electrically conductive material Fig 5 or Fig 7, 30 extending completely through the through- hole; and a cavity in the porous electrically conductive material in a central region of the through- hole ¶0101-0102 Fig 5 . Regarding claim 10, Shiono discloses wherein the porous electrically conductive material comprises a sintered electrically conductive paste comprising electrically conductive particles comprising a substantially uniform size ¶0186-0189, 0192-0194. Regarding claim 11, Shiono discloses wherein the substrate comprises a glass, a glass-ceramic, or a ceramic ¶0009,0155, 0179, 0442. Regarding claim 12, Shiono discloses wherein the porous electrically conductive material comprises copper or silver¶0101 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiono et al (US Publication No. 2004/0217455) Regarding claim 4, Shiono discloses all the limitations but silent on having the first porosity to be at least two times the second porosity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955). Regarding claim 5, Shiono disclose wherein the porous electrically conductive material comprises a gradient porosity between the first porosity and the second porosity ¶0111, 0120. Regarding claims 6 and 14, Shiono discloses the porous electrically conductive material with a specific surface roughness Fig 5 or Fig 7. Shiono discloses all the imitations but silent on the range of root mean square surface roughness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the root mean square surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955). Regarding claims 7 and 8, Shiono discloses wherein the porous electrically conductive material comprises copper and/or silver ¶0101. Shiono discloses all the limitations but silent on the porosity of the substate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiono et al (US Publication No. 2004/0217455) in view of Takagaki et al (US Publication No. 2018/0359865) . Regarding claim 13, Shiono discloses all the limitations but silent on the shape and size of the cavity. Whereas Takagaki discloses wherein the cavity comprises a length greater than about one-fourth a distance between the first surface and the second surface of the substrate Fig 4-7. Shiono and Takagaki are analogous art because they are directed to TSV structure and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Shiono because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cavity size, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiono et al (US Publication No. 2004/0217455) in view of Goto et al (US Publication No. 2004/0144312) . Regarding claim 15, Shiono discloses method for fabricating a via, the method comprising: forming a through-hole through a substrate from a first surface of the substrate to a second surface of the substrate opposite to the first surface Fig 4-7 ; filling the through-hole with a paste comprising an electrically conductive material Fig 33-34; sintering the paste to form a porous metallized through-hole comprising a first porosity ¶0445-0449. Shiono discloses all the limitations but silent on the hot isostatic pressure. Whereas Goto discloses applying hot-isostatic pressure to the porous metallized through-hole to change the porosity of the porous metallized through-hole proximate the first surface and the second surface of the substrate to a second porosity less than the first porosity ¶0057. Shiono and Goto are analogous art because they are directed to TSV structure and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Shiono because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deposition process as an alternative method known in the art to form the metal in the tSV. Regarding claim 16, Shiono discloses chemical-mechanical polishing the porous metallized through-hole to remove electrically conductive material on the first surface and the second surface of the substrate proximate the through-hole ¶0455-0456, 0461. Regarding claim 15, Goto in view of Shiono disclose wherein applying hot-isostatic pressure to the porous metallized through-hole comprises applying hot-isostatic pressure to the porous metallized through-hole to form a cavity in the electrically conductive material in a central region of the through-hole ¶0057. Regarding claim 18, Goto discloses all the limitations but silent on the temperature, pressure and the dwell time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify temperature, pressure and the dwell time range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955). It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F. 2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F .2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F .2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 19, Shiono discloses wherein the substrate comprises a glass, a glass-ceramic, or a ceramic ¶0096. Regarding claim 20, Shiono discloses wherein forming the through-hole comprises forming a cylindrical through-hole, a tapered through-hole, or an hour-glass through-hole Fig 2, 4-12. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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. /CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811 Application/Control Number: 18/700,432 Page 2 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 18/700,432 Page 3 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 18/700,432 Page 4 Art Unit: 2811
Prosecution Insights