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 Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 6/18/26 is acknowledged. Further, claims 21-33 is/are added appears to readable on the elected invention I above.
An OA on the merit of claims 1-7, 21-33 as following:
Priority
The related parent Application No. 17875251 has been fully matured into a patent (see under “Cross reference section) about ¶ [0001]. Therefore, the Application should be included: --, now US patent No. 12154846, issued on Nov. 26, 2024.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract appears to be in claim formats (See MPEP § 608.01(b)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter as presenting in each of claims 1, 21, and 29 must be shown in method flow diagram (similar to method flow chart Fig. 3 of record) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 21-33 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims 1, 21 and 29 about line 1 preamble is unclear as to exactly what method applicant is/are intended to claim since the preamble does not define what is the scope of the method. For clarity of the claim scope, it is suggested the following preamble:
--A method for fabricating a packaging structure (or a silicon oxide interposer), the method comprising step of:”—
“is performed after forming the interconnects” (claim 6, line 1-2) should be updated to: --" after the forming the plurality of interconnects” --, to reflect the step as in claim 5, line 3.
“is performed after forming the RDLs and before forming the polymer insulating layer” (claim 7, lines 1-2) should be updated to: -- “after the forming of the RDLs and before the forming the polymer insulating layer” --, for clarity of the method claim formats.
Claim 23 directed to the layer thickness is not positive method limitation.
Claim 24 recites” wherein formation of the silicon oxide layer further comprises performing a curing process after performing the spin coating process” is awkwardly worded should be updated to:
-- “wherein the forming of the silicon oxide layer further comprises curing and spin coating process, wherein the spin coating after the curing of the silicon oxide layer” --, for clarity of the method claim formats. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7, 23, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“and electrically coupled the RDLs” (claim 5, line 3-4) is incomplete in that it is not known as to what being “electrically coupled” thereto? a separate step such as: -- electrically coupling (A) to (B) “—is suggested.
“is performed” (claims 6-7, line 2) not an active method limitation (see claim objection above).
The term:” about” (claim 23, line 2) is unclear as to exactly the size is and should be deleted.
Claim 24 is awkwardly worded should be updated to that as suggested under claim objection above.
“is separated” (claim 28, line 2-3) not positive method limitation.
“wherein the temporary carrier is removed after forming the RDLs” (claim 31, lines 1-2) is not positive method limitation, should be updated to: --"wherein the removing of the temporary carrier after the forming the RDLs”--, for clarity of the claim .
Similar to claim 5 above applied to claim 32.
Similar to claim 31 applied to claim 33, respectively.
Further, it is also suggested that Applicant should carefully revise the disclosure and correct other typos in the claims and/or specification.
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 1-4, 21-22, 24-30 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12154846 hereinafter the’846. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘846 claim the same subject matter of the instant application as following:
The ‘846 claims a method of the instant application, comprising:
forming a silicon oxide layer on a temporary carrier; etching the silicon oxide layer to form through vias (TVs) penetrating through the silicon oxide layer (compare claim 1 or 8 or 15, lines 5-6)
filling the TVs with a conductive material to form conductive TVs (compare claim 1 or 8 or 15, lines 11-12);
removing the temporary carrier from a first surface of the silicon oxide layer (compare claim 1 or 8 or 15, lines 14-15); and
forming an under- bump metallurgy (UBM) layer contacting a first surface of the conductive material, wherein an interface between the UBM layer and the conductive material is coplanar with the first surface of the silicon oxide layer (claims 1 or 8 or 15, lines 16-18).
As applied to claim 2, compare to the ‘848 claims 1, 8, 15 about lines 3-4.
As applied to claim 3, compare to the ‘846, claim 9.
As applied to claims 21 and 29 refer to similar discussion in claim 1 above.
As applied to claim 22, compare to the ‘846, claim 9.
As applied to claim 24, compare to the ‘846, claim 1 or 8 or 15, lines 3-4.
As applied to claim 25, refer to claim 4 of the ‘846.
As applied to claim 26, refer to claim 15 of the ‘846.
As applied to claims 27, 28, refer to claim 15, lines 16-18, and claim
Further subject matter of claim 29 refer to claims 1, 8 or 15 of the ‘846.
As applied to claim 30 refer to claim 10 of the ‘846, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights