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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) s 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey et al. (US 20060255480 hereinafter Casey) in view of Shiono et al. (US 20040217455 hereinafter Shiono), and Sundaram et al. (US 2013/0119555 hereinafter Sundaram) and in further view of Woychik et al. (US 20120314384 hereinafter Woychik).
In regards to claim 1, Casey discloses;” An electrical component comprising: a glass or sapphire substrate (Paragraph 0002) defining a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Fig. 8B shows a top and bottom surface for (100)), and an internal surface that extends from the first surface to the second surface, wherein the internal surface defines a hole that extends from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 8A shows a thru structure); and a nonporous end cap (Fig. 8B (500, abstract where the cap is a polymer thus nonporous)) disposed at an end of the hole that defines a hermetic seal, wherein the electrical component defines an electrical path in the hole from the first surface to the second surface.”, but doses not directly disclose;” an electrically conductive coating that extends along at least a portion of the internal surface.”
However Shiono, Sundaram and Woychik disclose a glass substrate having thru vias disposed within, that have a metal lining between the metal fill of the via and the sidewall of the glass substrate. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to minimize sidewall cracking and other foreseeable manners to use a seed plating layer within a via hole during the processing of the substrate. It has become normal in the substrate processing, to use a seed layer in the fabrication of thru vias. Therefore using the seed layers as disclosed by Shiono. Sundaram and Woychik, the claimed invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 2, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 1, wherein the nonporous end cap is a first nonporous end cap disposed at a first end of the hole, and the electrical component further comprises a second nonporous endcap disposed at a second end of the hole that is opposite the first end that defines a second hermetic seal, and wherein the first end is adjacent the first surface of the substrate and the second end is adjacent the second surface of the substrate (Casey Fig. 8B (shown), the polymer is nonporous).”
In regards to claim 3, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 2, wherein the first and second nonporous end caps are metallic (Casey Paragraph 0013 where the polymer may contain copper).”
In regards to claim 4, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 3, further comprising a polymer disposed in the hole inside the electrically conductive coating (Casey Paragraph 0016).”
In regards to claim 5, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 4, wherein the polymer is electrically nonconductive (Paragraph 0013 where the polymer maybe void of a conductive metal).”
In regards to claim 6, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 5, wherein the polymer is hardened (Casey Paragraph 0013 where the polymer is curable thus hardened).”
In regards to claim 7, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 5, wherein the polymer comprises hardened epoxy (Casey Paragraph 0013 where polyamidoamine is an epoxy).”
In regards to claim 8, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 4, wherein the polymer is electrically conductive (Casey Paragraph 0013 where the polymer may contain copper).”
In regards to claim 9, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 1, wherein the end cap comprises sintered electrically conductive metallic particles (Casey Paragraphs 0014-0016).”
In regards to claim 10, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 1, further comprising a metallic material disposed in the hole inside the electrically conductive coating (Casey paragraph 0005).”
In regards to claim 11, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 1, wherein the metallic material comprises sintered metallic particles that define a bulk fill disposed in the hole inside the electrically conductive coating (Casey paragraph 0005).”
In regards to claim 12, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 11, wherein the end cap comprises a sintered final fill that extends from the bulk fill to the first surface, wherein the final fill comprises sintered metallic particles that are smaller than the metallic particles of the bulk fill (Casey Paragraph 0014).”
In regards to claim 13, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 1, wherein the end cap comprises laser-melted metal (Paragraph 0039 defines a heat source which could include a laser).”
In regards to claim 14, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive coating defines an electrically conductive path from the first surface to the second surface (Casey Claim 1).”
In regards to claim 15, a modified Casey discloses; “The electrical component of claim 1”, but dose not directly disclose;” wherein the electrically conductive coating comprises a metallic adhesion layer that is bonded to the internal surface, and a second metal layer bonded to the metallic adhesion layer.”
However, Woychik discloses in figure 2B there are two coatings on the thru via (50) shown as (51), (52). A bimetal interface (Woychik paragraph 0057, claim 4) is used to help control thermal expansion within the via.
In regards to claim 16, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 15, wherein the metallic adhesion layer and the second metal layer comprise two different metals (Woychik paragraph 0057, the layers maybe be different materials).
In regards to claim 17, a modified Casey discloses;” The electrical component of claim 15, wherein the metallic adhesion layer and the second metal layer comprise the same metal (Woychik paragraph 0057, the layers if not different, they must be the same).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F MCALLISTER whose telephone number is (571)272-2453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/MICHAEL F MCALLISTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights