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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 10-12 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manusharow et al. (US 2014/0264791 as disclose in previous office action).
As for claim 1, Manusharow et al. disclose in Fig. 1 and the related text a package comprising:
a substrate 12 that includes a glass core (middle portion of 12) [0016] vertically between a first build-up layer (lower portion of 12) and second build-up layer (upper portion of 12), the substrate with a first (upper) side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side;
a plurality of dies 14/16 coupled with the first side of the substrate (Fig. 1); and
a through via 26 extending from beneath a die of the plurality of dies, through the first build- up layer, through the glass core, and through the second build-up layer along a vertical axis through the first build-up layer, through the glass core, and through the second build-up layer (fig. 1).
As for claim 3, Manusharow et al. disclose the package claim 1, wherein the plurality dies 14/16 are directly coupled with the first side of the substrate (FIG. 1).
As for claim 4, Manusharow et al. disclose the package of claim 3, wherein the plurality of dies are coupled using direct chip attach (fig. 1).
As for claim 5, Manusharow et al. disclose the package of claim 1, wherein the substrate is a first substrate; and further comprising: a second substrate (PCB, [0017]) with a first (upper) side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side, wherein the first side of the second substrate is coupled with the second side of the first substrate.
As for claim 6, Manusharow et al. disclose the package of claim 1, further comprising: one or more through glass vias (TGV) (another 26) extending from the first side of the substrate to the second side of the substrate and through the glass core (fig. 1), the one or more TGV includes electrically conductive material, wherein at least one of the plurality of dies is electrically coupled with at least one of the one or more TGV (fig. 1).
As for claim 8, Manusharow et al. disclose the package of claim 6, wherein the substrate 12 is a first substrate; and further comprising: a second substrate (PCB, [0017]) with the first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first side of the second substrate is electrically coupled with the through via (another 26) (fig. 1, [0017]).
As for claim 10, Manusharow et al. disclose the package of claim 1, further comprising: a bridge 28 within the substrate, a side of the bridge proximate to the first side of the substrate, the bridge electrically coupled with at least two of the plurality of dies (fig. 1).
As for claim 11, Manusharow et al. disclose the package of claim 10, wherein the bridge is a selected one of: an open cavity bridge (OCB) or an Embedded Multi-die Interconnect Bridge (EMIB) (fig. 1, [0015]).
As for claim 12, Manusharow et al. disclose the package of claim 1, wherein the first side of the substrate includes a redistribution layer (RDL) 36/48, wherein at least one of the plurality of dies is electrically coupled with the RDL (fig. 1).
As for claim 18, Manusharow et al. disclose in Fig. 1 and the related text a system comprising:
a package 10 comprising:
a first substrate 12 that includes a glass core (middle portion of 12 [0016]) vertically between a first build-up layer (lower portion of) and second build-up layer, the first substrate with a first (upper) side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side;
a plurality of dies 14/16 coupled with the first side of the first substrate (fig. 1);
a through via (left 26 or one of 26) extending from beneath a die 14 of the plurality of dies, through the first build-up layer, through the glass core, and through the second build-up layer along a vertical axis through the first build-up layer, through the glass core, and through the second build-up layer (fig. 1);
a plurality of through glass vias (TGV) (right 26 or others 26) extending from the first side of the first substrate to the second side of the first substrate and through the glass core (fig. 1), the plurality of TGV including electrically conductive material ([0017]-[0018]); and
a second substrate (socket/PCB, [0017]) with a first (lower) side and a second (upper) side opposite the first side, the second substrate including a plurality of electrical connections (It is inherent that a socket or PCB include metal traces/wirings/conductor) between the first side and the second side, the second side of the second substrate 28 electrically coupled with the second side of the first substrate 12.
As for claim 19, Manusharow et al. disclose the system of claim 18, wherein the third substrate (PCB, [0017]) is coupled with the second side of the first substrate (socket [0017]), and wherein the third substrate is a selected one of: a temporary carrier, an organic substrate, or a motherboard [0017].
As for claim 20, Manusharow et al. disclose the system of claim 18, wherein the second substrate includes a bridge 28 with a side proximate to the first side of the second substrate (fig. 1), and wherein one of the plurality of dies is electrically coupled to another of the plurality of dies the other bridge (fig. 1).
As for claim 21, Manusharow et al. disclose system of claim 20, wherein the bridge 28 is a selected one of: an EMIB or an OCB (fig. 1).
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.
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manusharow et al. in view of Barth et al. (US 2014/0252632, as disclosed in previous office action).
As for claim 2 and 9, Manusharow et al. disclosed substantially the entire invention as applied in claim 1, except at least one of the plurality of dies are stacked on another of the plurality of dies; and second substrate is an organic substrate.
Barth et al. teach in Fig. 8 and the related text at least one 404 of the plurality of dies are stacked on another 404’ of the plurality of dies 804 and second substrate 405 is an organic substrate [0054].
Manusharow et al and Barth et al. are analogous art because they both are directed packaging devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Manusharow et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Manusharow et al. to include the limitations as taught by Barth et al., in order to provide fixed size of the interface (Bath et al.: [0023]) and to provide suitable material for the substrate.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manusharow et al.
As for claim 7, Manusharow et al. disclosed substantially the entire invention as applied in claim 1, except the substrate has a thickness of the glass core ranging from 100 pm to 750 pm, and wherein a pitch of the one or more TGV ranging from 50 pm to 30 pm
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the substrate has a thickness of the glass core ranging from 100 pm to 750 pm, and wherein a pitch of the one or more TGV ranging from 50 pm to 30 pm, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed 08/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) above have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Manusharow et al..
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 18 that Manusharow et al. do not disclose a substrate that includes a glass core vertically between a first build-up laver and a second build-up laver, the substrate with a first side and a second side opposite the first side," and "a plurality of dies coupled with the first side of the substrate” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the following reasons. Fig. 1 of Manusharow et al. teach “a substrate 12 that includes a glass core (middle portion of 12) [0016] vertically between a first build-up layer (lower portion of 12) and second build-up layer (upper portion of 12), the substrate with a first (upper) side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side; a plurality of dies 14/16 coupled with the first side of the substrate. Therefore, Manusharow et al. still disclosed the claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Examiner believes that all Applicant’s arguments and remarks are addressed. The Examiner has determined that the previous Office Action is still proper based on the above responses. Therefore, the rejections are sustained and maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3259. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 5712721670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRANG Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights