DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,699,691. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 21-40, Patent ’691 [Claims 1-6,10-20] discloses the limitations of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. Pub. 2008/0157326) in view of Miyazaki (U.S. Pat. 6297141), Ogawa (U.S. Pat. 6952049) and further in view of Kaprinidis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0111010).
Regarding claim 21, Han [Figs.3-5] discloses an interposer structure, comprising:
a substrate [40] having an upper surface and a lower surface and being made of a base material;
a plurality of conductive structures [Para.37] disposed in respective through substrate holes (TSHs) [41], where each TSH extends through an entire thickness of the substrate and where each conductive structure in the plurality of conductive structures is made of a conductive layer that lines sidewalls of a corresponding TSH, and the conductive layer fills less than an entirety of each of the TSHs to leave a central opening extending entirely through each conductive structure; and
the substrate defining an opening [die 22 opening] therein for receiving a semiconductor die [22], and the opening extends through the entire thickness of the substrate [Fig.3].
Han fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate having an upper surface and a lower surface and being made of a base material and at least one additive comprising fiber glass, wherein the base material and the at least one additive are continuous from the upper surface to the lower surface, wherein a weight percentage of the fiber glass from the upper surface to the lower surface of the interposer substrate is in a range from 5% to 60%. However, Ogawa [Figs.1,26] discloses wherein the substrate [120,920] having an upper and lower surfaces and is made of a base material and fiber glass [140,940], wherein the base material and the fiber glass are continuous from the upper surface to the lower surface [Col.46 lines 18-37]. Kaprinidis [Para.4] discloses and makes obvious wherein a weight percentage of the fiber glass from the upper surface to the lower surface of the interposer substrate is in a range from 5% to 60%. It would have been obvious to include the teachings of Ogawa and Kaprinidis into the device of Han, since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Han fails to explicitly disclose where a conductive layer that lines sidewalls of a corresponding TSH and extends out of the TSH to directly contact portions of the upper surface and the lower surface of the substrate proximate to the TSH, wherein the conductive layer also surrounds the plurality of the TSHs on a surface of the substrate. However, Miyazaki [Figs.1-2] discloses an interposer substrate [2] where a conductive structure [24] includes a conductive layer that lines sidewalls of a corresponding TSH [22] and extends out of the TSH to directly contact portions of the upper surface and the lower surface of the substrate proximate to the TSH, wherein the conductive layer also surrounds the plurality of the TSHs on a surface of the substrate. It would have been obvious to include the teachings of Miyazaki into the device of Han, since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Miyazaki discloses conductive wherein the conductive layer also surrounds the plurality of the TSHs on a surface of the substrate, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the conductive layer on the surface of the substrate has a width in a range from 2 µm to 100 µm. However, Miyazaki [Col.3 lines 40-41] discloses through substrate hole [22] comprising a diameter of 200 µm. It appears obvious wherein the conductive layer on the surface of the substrate has a width in a range from 2 µm to 100 µm [Figs.1-2]. It would have been obvious to include wherein the conductive layer on the surface of the substrate has a width in a range from 2 µm to 100 µm, since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 23-26, Han [Figs.3-5] and Ogawa disclose an interposer structure,
wherein the plurality of TSHs [41] each pass entirely through a periphery region of the substrate [40] and collectively surround, in a ring-like shape, a central region of the substrate in which the opening [die 22 opening] is arranged;
wherein the base material is selected from a group consisting of glass, silicon, gallium arsenide, epoxy, polymer, molding compound, plastic, and ceramic [Ogawa, col.46 lines 18-37];
further comprising:
a first substrate [20] having a first conductive bump [21a];
a second substrate [30] having a second conductive bump [35]; and
a semiconductor die [22] arranged in the opening,
wherein the first conductive bump and the second conductive bump each extend into the TSH to fill the central opening and contact one another [This limitation appears to be a product by process step. Since this is a device claim, it appears the TSH conductor of Han discloses the resulting claimed structure], and the first conductive bump and second conductive bump are laterally spaced from the semiconductor die [Fig.5];
wherein the conductive layer includes copper [Para.37].
Claim 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. Pub. 2008/0157326) in view of Miyazaki (U.S. Pat. 6297141), Ogawa (U.S. Pat. 6952049) and Kaprinidis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0111010), as applied above, and further in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2011/0291287) and Shin (U.S. Pub. 2010/0330747).
Regarding claim 22, Han fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim. However, Wu [Para.34] discloses wherein a pitch at which the TSHs are spaced is in a range from about 75 µm to about 500 µm. Shin [Para.84] discloses wherein each TSH of the plurality of TSHs has a width in a range from about 50 µm to about 200 µm. It would have been obvious to include the teachings of Wu and Shin into the device of Han, since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. Pub. 2008/0157326) in view of Miyazaki (U.S. Pat. 6297141), Ogawa (U.S. Pat. 6952049) and Kaprinidis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0111010), as applied above, and further in view of Hedler (U.S. Pub. 2009/0212420).
Regarding claim 27, Han fails to explicitly disclose the width of the substrate. However, the width of the substrate can be set to a desired width to match the first and second semiconductor substrates being bonded. Hedler [Para.28] discloses a typical silicon wafer width of 300 mm, and as such discloses a desired substrate width wherein the substrate has a width as measured between outermost sidewalls of the substrate in a range from about 300 µm to about 300 mm. It would have been obvious to include the teachings of Hedler into the device of Han, since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 35, 36, and 39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. Pub. 2008/0157326) in view of Miyazaki (U.S. Pat. 6297141), Ogawa (U.S. Pat. 6952049), Kaprinidis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0111010), and further in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2011/0291287).
Regarding claims 35, 36, and 39, Han, Miyazaki, Ogawa, Kaprinidis, and Wu [Discussed above] discloses the limitations of these claims,
a interposer structure, comprising:
a substrate having a first surface and a second surface and being made of a base material and at least one additive comprising fiber glass, wherein the base material and the at least one additive are continuous from the first surface to the second surface, wherein a weight percentage of the fiber glass from the first surface to the second surface of the substrate is in a range from 5 % to 60 %;
a plurality of conductive structures disposed in respective TSHs and are spaced apart from one another at a pitch ranging from 75 µm to 500 µm, and where each conductive structure in the plurality of conductive structures is made of a conductive layer that lines sidewalls of a corresponding TSH and extends out of the TSH to directly contact portions of the first and second surfaces of the substrate proximate to the TSH, and the conductive layer fills less than an entirety of each of the TSHs to leave a central opening extending entirely through each conductive structure, wherein the conductive layer also surrounds the plurality of the TSHs on a surface of the substrate; and
the substrate defining an opening therein for receiving a semiconductor die, and the opening extends through an entire thickness of the substrate;
further comprising:
a first substrate arranged over the first surface of the substrate and having a first conductive bump; and
a second substrate arranged beneath the second surface of the substrate and having a second conductive bump,
wherein the first conductive bump and the second conductive bump each extend into the TSH to fill the central opening and contact one another;
wherein the plurality of conductive structures comprise copper.
Claim 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. Pub. 2008/0157326) in view of Miyazaki (U.S. Pat. 6297141), Ogawa (U.S. Pat. 6952049), Kaprinidis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0111010), and Wu (U.S. Pub. 2011/0291287), as applied above, and further in view of Shin (U.S. Pub. 2010/0330747).
Regarding claim 38, Han, Miyazaki, Ogawa, Kaprinidis, Wu, and Shin [Discussed above] discloses wherein each TSH of the plurality of TSHs has a width in a range from about 50 µm to about 200 µm.
Claim 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. Pub. 2008/0157326) in view of Miyazaki (U.S. Pat. 6297141), Ogawa (U.S. Pat. 6952049), Kaprinidis (U.S. Pub. 2007/0111010), and Wu (U.S. Pub. 2011/0291287), as applied above, and further in view of Hedler (U.S. Pub. 2009/0212420).
Regarding claim 40, Han, Miyazaki, Ogawa, Kaprinidis, Wu, and Hedler [Discussed above] discloses wherein the substrate has a width in a range from about 300 µm to about 300 mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights