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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/15/2024 under 37 CFR 1.312 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, & 31 have been currently amended. Claims 1-6, 8-15, 31-32 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The indicated allowability of claim(s) 7- 9 from the final rejection dated 09/16/2024 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to dielectric layer . Rejections of the claims submitted on 11/15/2024 based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,6,10,13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 20110114380 A1) in view of Jang (US 20090179712 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mok discloses an apparatus comprising a substrate 300 (Note: They refer to it as a bandgap structure, but it is a substrate), the substrate comprising:
a first metal layer 310 & 340 comprising a plurality of signal interconnects 340 on a first side of the substrate 300;
a second metal layer 350 comprising a plurality of ground plane portions 350 (Note: the metal layer is acting as a ground plane portion) on a second side of the substrate 300;
a plurality of conductive channels 345 disposed on the plurality of ground plane portions 350 that extend from the plurality of ground plane portions 350 towards the first metal layer 310 & 340,
wherein a distance from each of the plurality of conductive channels 345 to a respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects 340 is in a range of seventy-five percent to fifty percent of a substrate thickness between the first metal layer 310 & 340 and the second metal layer 350 (Fig. 5, Note: the distance between the top surface of 345 to the bottom surface of 340 visually appears to be ~ 50% the minimal distance between the second metal layer 350 and the first metal layer 310 & 340 as can be seen in fig. 5),
wherein each of the plurality of conductive channels is generally aligned with the respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects (Fig. 5),
wherein a width of each of the plurality of conductive channels 345, anywhere between a lower portion thereof disposed on a respective one of the plurality of ground plane portions and an upper portion thereof facing the respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects, is approximately the same or greater than a width of the respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects (See Fig. 5, Note: The horizontal widths of 345 and 340 appear to be equivalent),
wherein the substrate 300 is a cored substrate (Note: The dielectric layer 320 is acting as a core, functionally and structurally making the substrate 300 a cored substrate by definition).
However, Mok arguably may not expressly disclose that a distance from each of the plurality of conductive channels to a respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects is in a range of seventy-five to fifty percent of a substrate thickness between the first metal layer and the second metal layer (Note: Though this distance does appear to be approximately 50%, as mentioned above).
However, Mok states that the distance between the ground extension and signal interconnect may be varied (Paragraph [0053]). Additionally, in a comparable device, Jang discloses that changing the distance by increasing the thickness h of a dielectric 30 (320 in Mok) between a signal line 20 (340 in Mok) and a ground plane 40 (350 in Mok) is well known to adjust the impedance of the lines (Paragraph [0003], Note: equation 3 discloses this relationship).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the distance from each of the plurality of conductive channels to a respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects, because Jang has identified the thickness 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 range of seventy-five percent to fifty percent of a substrate thickness, in order to achieve the desired impedance, as taught by Jang. MPEP 2144.05. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness 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). Because impedance control prevents distortion of signal waveforms, and prevents signal deterioration in a wiring substrate for high frequency application (Jang Paragraph [0003] & [0020]), and because both Mok and Jang disclose a wiring substrate for high-frequency applications (Jang Paragraph [0003], Mok Paragraph [0071]), a person having ordinary skill in the art could have similarly applied the technique of Jang to the device of Mok by varying the thickness of the dielectric layer 320 of Mok, in order to predictably control the impedance as taught by Jang.
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Mok discloses the plurality of signal interconnects is configured to carry a high-speed data signal (Paragraph [0069], Note: High operating frequency).
Regarding claim 6, Mok discloses the first metal layer 310 & 340, the second metal layer 350 and the plurality of conductive channels comprises at least one of: Copper (Cu), Cobalt (Co), Ruthenium (Ru), Wolfram (W), Molybdenum (Mo), Gold (Au), Silver (Ag), Aluminum (Al), Tin (Sn), or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0045], Note: Copper plates 110, which appear to be analogous to the 310).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mok and Jang discloses an impedance of each of the plurality of signal interconnects is less than 50 ohms (Jang Paragraph [0055], Note: 20-30 ohms on average).
Regarding claim 14, Mok discloses the width of each of the plurality of conductive channels 345 is no more than 5 micrometers wider than the width of each of the plurality of signal interconnects 340 (Fig. 5, Note: They appear to be the same widths).
Claim(s) 3,4,5,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 20110114380 A1) in view of Jang (US 20090179712 A1) and further in view of Crisp (US 20130082395 A1).
Regarding claim 3, although the combination of Mok and Jang disclose the apparatus of claim 2, they do not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 2 wherein the plurality of signal interconnects is couples to a dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). However, substrates with signal interconnects and grounds are often incorporate into packages with DRAM.
Crisp discloses: the plurality of signal interconnects (Paragraphs [0011] & Fig. 6 or [0085] & Fig. 5 #s 111 or 113, Note: terminals having signal assignments) is coupled to a dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) (Paragraph [0070]).
Because Crisp discloses the use of a wiring substrate having signal interconnects and grounds in a package, and because Mok discloses a wiring substrate having signal interconnects and grounds, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could have added the molded chips of Crisp to the wiring substrate of Mok, assembling them as shown in Crisp Fig. 6, in order to arrive at the predictable results of providing a functional package. In the combination, the device of Mok would continue to transmit a signal, while the molded chips of Crisp would continue to provide functionality such as memory and processing (Crisp Paragraph [0070]).
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” KRS, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mok, Jang, and Crisp further discloses a processor die (Crisp Paragraph [0070], Note: signal processor), wherein the processor die is coupled to the DRAM by the substrate (Crisp Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mok, Jang, and Crisp further discloses a molded embedded package (MEP) comprising the processor die (Crisp Paragraph [0070] & Fig. 6) the substrate 300 (Mok Fig. 5) and the DRAM (Crisp Fig. 6, #s 101, 103, Note: they may be DRAM or Processors, and there also exist an encapsulant 146)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mok, Jang, and Crisp further discloses wherein the apparatus selected from the group consisting of: a package, a molded embedded package (MEP), a music player, a video player, an entertainment unit, a navigation device, a communications device, a mobile device, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a fixed location terminal, a tablet computer, a computer, a wearable device, an Internet of things (IoT) device, a laptop computer, a server, a base station, and a device in an automotive vehicle (Crisp Fig. 6, Note: Package).
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 20110114380 A1) in view of Jang (US 20090179712 A1) and further in view of Aleksov (US 20200258839 A1).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Mok and Jang disclose the apparatus of claim 1, although this combination shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Mok and Jang fail to expressly teach the substrate thickness is in a range of 40 micrometers to 1.2 micrometers.
However, it is common for substrates to be formed in this range of thicknesses. For example, Aleksov discloses:
The substrate (Aleksov, 240 and underlying dielectric, as seen in Fig. 2B) thickness is in a range of 40 micrometers to 1.2 millimeters (Aleksov, Paragraph [0119] & Fig. 8, Paragraph [0039] & Fig. 2B, Note: Fig. 8 is a method by which the structure in Fig. 2B is formed, and the thickness taught is a range from 4 to 50 micrometers).
Because the substrate of Mok and Jang is Printed Circuit Board (Mok, Paragraph [0069], Note: The elements that made up the substrate taught by Mok are used for further description of a printed circuit board) and the substrate of Aleksov is a Printed Circuit Board (Aleksov, Paragraph [0045]), and because the combination of Mok and Jang does not expressly disclose the thickness, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could form the Printed Circuit Board of the combined Mok and Jang to the thickness of the Printed Circuit Board of Aleksov. This would arrive at the predictable result of providing a substrate of suitable thickness.
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. KRS Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mok and Jang teach the apparatus of claim 1, and teach that the plurality of conductive channels 345 are formed in a core 320 of the cored substrate 300 (Mok, Fig. 5).
Although the combination of Mok and Jang show substantial features of the claimed invention, Mok and Jang fail to expressly teach that the substrate thickness is about 40 micrometers, and the distance is between 20 micrometers to about 30 micrometers.
However, it is common for substrates to be formed at this thickness. For example, Aleksov discloses:
The substrate (Aleksov, 240 and underlying dielectric, as seen in Fig. 2B) thickness is about 40 micrometers (Aleksov, Paragraph [0119] & Fig. 8, Paragraph [0039] & Fig. 2B, Note: Fig. 8 is a method by which the structure in Fig. 2B is formed, and the thickness taught is a range from 4 to 50 micrometers).
Because the substrate of Mok and Jang is Printed Circuit Board (Mok, Paragraph [0069], Note: The elements that made up the substrate taught by Mok are used for further description of a printed circuit board) and the substrate of Aleksov is a Printed Circuit Board (Aleksov, Paragraph [0045]), and because the combination of Mok and Jang does not expressly disclose the thickness, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could form the Printed Circuit Board of the combined Mok and Jang to the thickness of the Printed Circuit Board of Aleksov. This would arrive at the predictable result of providing a substrate of suitable thickness.
Furthermore, the distance (between each of the plurality of conductive channels to a respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects) being between about 20 micrometers to about 30 micrometers would be disclosed by Mok and Jang in light of the teachings of Aleksov, given that they taught a distance from each of the plurality of conductive channels 345 to a respective one of the plurality of signal interconnects 340 is in a range of seventy-five percent to fifty percent of a substrate thickness between the first metal layer 310 & 340 and the second metal layer 350 (Fig. 5, Note: the distance between the top surface of 345 to the bottom surface of 340 visually appears to be ~ 50% the minimal distance between the second metal layer 350 and the first metal layer 310 & 340 as can be seen in fig. 5).
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. KRS Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 31, 10, 11, & 12 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 31, the available art of record does not disclose nor render obvious wherein the width of each of the plurality of conductive channels is between about 8 micrometers (um) to 100 um, in combination with the other limitations of claim 31.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 31, and are allowable for the reasons above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY ALEXANDER RINE whose telephone number is (703)756-5701. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 EST First Fr Off.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on 5712725055. 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.
/JEREMY ALEXANDER RINE/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights