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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/25/2024, 4/16/2025 and 9/17/2025 are in compliance with time for filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.97, and thus, the information disclosure statements have been considered except as otherwise indicated.
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.
The following title is suggested: Roughness-Shape Metric to Promote Uniformity in Glass-Based Substrates for Semiconductor Packaging.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasagawa et al. (US7623287B2).
Regarding Claim 1:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate (Figs. 10 element 172), comprising:
a glass core (element 100) having a top surface (non-planar surface; paragraphs 87-88);
wherein a ratio value of skewness to maximum height roughness (Rs/z) of the top surface of the glass core [Skewness/Max. Roughness], according to the following Equation 1, is -5 nm-2 to 50 nm-2 (paragraphs 90-96),
[Equation 1]
R
s
/
z
=
R
s
k
R
z
2
×
1000
wherein, in Equation 1, the Rsk is skewness and the Rz is maximum height roughness (unit: nm) [Table 1].
Regarding Claim 2:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 1, wherein the Rsk is -0.5 to 1.8 (Skewness; paragraph 95).
Regarding Claim 3:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 1, wherein the Rz is 3 nm to 30 nm (Max. Roughness; paragraph 94).
Regarding Claim 6:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 1, further comprising an electrically conductive layer (Figs. 10 element 105/110/140/115) disposed on the glass core (element 100; paragraphs 59-61).
Regarding Claim 7:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 6, wherein the electrically conductive layer (paragraph 59) comprises a seed layer (sacrificial layer; Figs. 10 element 115/110) and a conductive layer disposed on the seed layer (overlying layer; element 105/140), and a thickness of the seed layer is 50 nm to 1,500 nm (paragraph 63).
Regarding Claim 9:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 6, wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a first electrically conductive layer (Figs. 10 element 105/110/140/115) formed in contact with the top surface of the glass core (element 100, paragraphs 61-78), and when observed in a cross-section of the first electrically conductive layer (Figs. 12A-C), an Rz value, which is a maximum height roughness of an interface formed between the first electrically conductive layer and the glass core, is 5 nm to 200 nm (Table 1; paragraph 90-96).
Regarding Claim 11:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is for semiconductor packaging (Figs. 10 element 175, paragraph 79).
Regarding Claim 12:
Sasagawa discloses a method of manufacturing a substrate (Figs. 9, paragraphs 59-98), the method comprising:
a preparing operation of preparing a base glass plate (Fig. 9A); and
a roughening operation of roughening a top surface of the base glass plate to form a glass core comprised in the substrate (paragraphs 59-88),
wherein the glass core (element 100) has a top surface (non-planar surface; paragraphs 87-88), and
a ratio value of roughness skewness to maximum height roughness (Rs/z) of the top surface of the glass core [Skewness/Max. Roughness], according to the following Equation 1, is -5 nm-2 to 50 nm-2 (paragraphs 90-96):
[Equation 1]
R
s
/
z
=
R
s
k
R
z
2
×
1000
wherein, in Equation 1, the Rsk value is skewness value and the Rz value is maximum height roughness (unit: nm) [Table 1].
Regarding Claim 13:
Sasagawa discloses a method according to claim 12, wherein the roughening operation comprises plasma-treating (paragraph 60) the top surface of the base glass plate to form the glass core (Figs. 9A-C, paragraphs 60-72).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasagawa et al. (US7623287B2) in view of Kato et al. (US20230257863A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of the Rsk values is 0.5 or less (Table 1, paragraphs 90-93). However, Sasagawa does not explicitly disclose that the values of Rsk are based on a measurement of three areas.
Kato discloses an analogous glass substrate (Fig. 2) – that has undergone a surface roughening treatment (paragraphs 27-29) – wherein the top surface [base surface] of the glass core (element 10) has a total of three measurement areas selected randomly (paragraph 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the testing method for surface roughening described in Sasagawa further in view of Kato to explicitly include where the standard deviation of the skewness values are determined through a measurement of three randomly selected areas because both are directed to analogous adhesion treatments of glass substrates specifically designed for semiconductor devices. Doing so ensures the effectiveness of the bonding process to improve the durability of these substrates (Kato, paragraphs 6-7).
The examiner first notes that Sasagawa does not explicitly disclose a range for the standard deviation of Rsk values. However, Sasagawa recognizes that the measured outcome of the skewness directly affects the effectiveness of adhesion efforts used in the treatments of non-planar surfaces (90-93). Furthermore, Sasagawa recognizes that improving the reliability of these devices, e.g., electrical performance, stiction, and durability, is necessitated by consistent skewness values (paragraphs 95-97). The standard deviation of Rsk values is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to vary, through routine optimization, the standard deviation of Rsk values as Sasagawa has identified Rsk as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a standard deviation value of less than 0.5, in order to achieve the desired reduction in adhesion and friction influences during the bonding process, as taught by Sasagawa. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed standard deviation is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 5:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of the Rz values is 1.5 nm or less (Table 1, paragraphs 90-93). However, Sasagawa does not explicitly disclose that the values of Rz are based on a measurement of three areas.
Kato discloses an analogous glass substrate (Fig. 2) – that has undergone a surface roughening treatment (paragraphs 27-29) – wherein the top surface [base surface] of the glass core (element 10) has a total of three measurement areas selected randomly (paragraph 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the testing method for surface roughening described in Sasagawa further in view of Kato to explicitly include where the standard deviation of the maximum height roughness values are determined through a measurement of three randomly selected areas because both are directed to analogous adhesion treatments of glass substrates specifically designed for semiconductor devices. Doing so ensures the effectiveness of the bonding process to improve the durability of these substrates (Kato, paragraphs 6-7).
The examiner first notes that Sasagawa does not explicitly disclose a range for the standard deviation of Rz values. However, Sasagawa recognizes that the surface roughness directly affects the outcomes of the bonding process between non-planar surfaces and a corresponding material (88-90). Furthermore, Sasagawa recognizes that improving the reliability of these devices, e.g., electrical performance, stiction, and durability, is necessitated by consistent maximum roughness values (paragraphs 90-97). The standard deviation of Rz values is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to vary, through routine optimization, the standard deviation of Rz values as Sasagawa has identified Rz as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a standard deviation value of less than 1.5 nm, in order to achieve the desired reduction in static friction influences during the bonding process, as taught by Sasagawa. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed standard deviation is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasagawa et al. (US7623287B2) in view of Bourgeois-Moine et al. (US4946546A; IDS, 04/16/2025).
Regarding Claim 8:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 6, wherein the electrically conductive layer has a pattern shape (Figs. 10 element 105/110/140/115, paragraphs 61-78). However, Sasagawa does not explicitly disclose a width range nor a thickness range for the electrically conductive layer.
Bourgeois-Moine discloses an analogous substrate (Figs. 1-4), comprising a roughened glass substrate with electrically conductive layers disposed on the surface (paragraphs 10-17), wherein a width of the electrically conductive layer is 1 µm to 5 µm (metallic strips; paragraph 21), and a thickness of the electrically conductive layer is 1 µm to 5 µm (paragraphs 10-13).
The examiner first notes that the width range Bourgeois-Moine discloses for the electrically conductive layer is beyond the claimed range. The examiner next notes the width of the electrically conductive layer [metallic strips] is recognized by the prior art as a result-effective variable (Bourgeois-Moine, paragraphs 2 and 11-18). The examiner now notes that optimization of result effective variables through routine experimentation is an obviousness expedient and not a patentable distinction. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Sasagawa further in view of Bourgeois-Moine to explicitly include a width and thickness range of between 1 µm to 5 µm for the electrically conductive layer because both are directed to analogous glass substrate-based semiconductor devices. Doing so improves the electrical performance of these semiconductor devices at varying frequencies (Bourgeois-Moine, paragraphs 2 and 11-18).
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed width range is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Regarding Claim 10:
Sasagawa discloses a substrate according to claim 6, wherein the electrically conductive layer comprises a first electrically conductive layer (Figs. 10 element 105/110/140/115) formed in contact with the top surface of the glass core (element 100, paragraphs 61-78). However, Sasagawa does not explicitly disclose a range of values for an adhesive force between the first electrically conductive layer formed in contact with the top surface of the glass core.
Bourgeois-Moine discloses an analogous substrate (Figs. 1-4), comprising a roughened glass substrate with electrically conductive layers disposed on the surface (paragraphs 10-17), wherein an adhesive force [peeling forces] between the first electrically conductive layer and the glass core measured by a test is 0.2 kgf to 3 kgf (paragraphs 2-4 and 18-21).
The examiner first notes that the adhesive force range Bourgeois-Moine discloses is beyond the claimed range. The examiner next notes that the bonding/adhesion force is a result effective variable because adjusting the value can have a direct effect on the long-term structural integrity of these devices. However, Bourgeois-Moine recognizes that varying values of the peeling forces impacts the electrical performance and durability of glass-based substrates at high frequencies (paragraphs 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the adhesion force – between the first electrically conductive layer and the glass core – as Bourgeois-Moine has identified as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at range of an adhesive force measured between 0.2 kgf to 3 kgf (or equivalent unit value) by a comparable peel test in order to achieve the desired electrical improvements of these semiconductor devices at varying frequencies, as taught by Bourgeois-Moine. MPEP 2144.05.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ecton et al. (US 20240222249 A1), Yamada et al. (WO 2020241805 A1), Miyazaki et al. (US 20190088893 A1), Miwa et al. (US 20120058306 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chloë E Benton whose telephone number is (571)272-9976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8am-6pm EST.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Chloë E Benton/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights