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 without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 8/13/2026.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebefors et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0255344, hereinafter Ebefors) in view of Matejat et al. (US PG Pub 2013/0082091, hereinafter Matejat).
Regarding claim 1, figures 1-7 of Ebefors disclose a substrate structure, comprising:
an inorganic substrate (10, ¶ 63), having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite to each other and at least one through hole (12) penetrating the inorganic substrate and connected to the upper surface and the lower surface;
an adhesion promotion layer (20), disposed on the upper surface, the lower surface, and an inner wall of the at least one through hole of the inorganic substrate;
an electroless nickel layer (26, ¶ 69), disposed on a portion of the adhesion promotion layer; and
a conductive material (28), disposed on the electroless nickel-phosphor layer and filling the at least one through hole to define at least one first conductive circuit located on the upper surface, at least one second conductive circuit located on the lower surface, and at least one conductive through hole located within the at least one through hole and electrically connected to the at least one first conductive circuit and the at least one second conductive circuit.
Ebefors does not explicitly disclose a nickel-phosphor layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Matejat discloses an electroless barrier layer can equivalently be formed of nickel or nickel-phosphor (¶ 40).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a electroless nickel-phosphor layer as taught by Matejat for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose. see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 2, Ebefors discloses a material of the inorganic substrate comprises common materials in IC processing (¶ 63) but does not explicitly disclose glass or ceramics.
However, it would have been obvious to use glass or ceramics since they are also well known materials in the art suitable for substrates.
Regarding claims 3-5, Ebefors does not explicitly disclose a surface roughness of the inorganic substrate is between 1 nm and 50 nm,
a thickness of the inorganic substrate is between 50 µm and 1000 µm, or
a diameter of the at least one through hole is between 10 µm and 200 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the device with a surface roughness and thickness and diameter of the through hole within the claimed ranges, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In 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)).
Regarding claim 6, Ebefors discloses a material of the adhesion promotion layer (20) comprises an oxide (¶ 65).
Regarding claim 7, Ebefors does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the adhesion promotion layer (20) is between 0.01nm and 100 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the adhesion promotion layer with a thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In 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)).
Regarding claim 8, Ebefors discloses an electroless copper layer (¶ 69), disposed between the electroless nickel-phosphor layer (26) and the conductive material (28).
Regarding claim 9, figure 15 of Ebefors discloses at least one build-up structure, disposed on at least one of the upper surface and the lower surface of the inorganic substrate (¶ 84).
Ebefors does not explicitly disclose the at least one build-up structure comprises at least one insulating layer, at least one conductive blind hole, and at least one trace, the at least one insulating layer covers at least one of the at least one first conductive circuit and the at least one second conductive circuit, the at least one trace is located on the at least one insulating layer, and the at least one conductive blind hole is located within the at least one insulating layer and electrically connected to the at least one trace and at least one of the at least one first conductive circuit and the at least one second conductive circuit.
However, such a structure is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to form the claimed layers and traces for the purpose of routing signals into and/or out of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-HSI DAVID SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/YU-HSI D SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights