CTFR 17/481,234 CTFR 83806 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Pietambaram et al. (US 2021/0028080) . As for claim 1, Pietambaram et al. disclose in Fig. 1A-1B, 6 and the related text a package comprising: a substrate that includes a glass core 110 vertically between a first build-up layer 132/133 and a second build-up layer 118, the substrate with a first (upper) side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side; a plurality of dies 140/150 coupled with the first side of the substrate (Fig. 1B); and a through via 119/115/112/117/131/134 extending from beneath a die of the plurality of dies 140/150, through the first build- up layer 132/133, through the glass core 110, and through the second build-up layer 118 along a vertical axis through the first build-up layer, through the glass core, and through the second build-up layer (Fig. 1B), wherein a maximum width of the through via (portion 115 of 112/115/117) in the glass core is greater than a maximum width of the through via (portion 131/134) in the first build-up layer 132/133 and greater than a maximum width of the through via (portion 119) in the second build-up layer 118 (Fig. 1B). As for claim 2, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of dies 140/150 are stacked on another of the plurality of dies (Fig. 1B). As for claim 3, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package claim 1, wherein the plurality dies 140/150 are directly coupled with the first side of the substrate (Fig. 1B). As for claim 4, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package of claim 3, wherein the plurality of dies 140/150 are coupled using direct chip attach (Fig. 1B). As for claim 5, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package of claim 1, wherein the substrate is a first substrate; and further comprising: a second substrate 681 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 (Fig. 6). As for claim 6, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package of claim 1, further comprising: one or more through glass vias (TGV) (left 119/115/112/117/131/134) extending from the first side of the substrate to the second side of the substrate and through the glass core, the one or more TGV includes electrically conductive material, wherein at least one of the plurality of dies 140/150 is electrically coupled with at least one of the one or more TGV (Fig. 1B). As for claim 8, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package of claim 6, wherein the substrate is a first substrate; and further comprising: a second substrate 681 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 (Fig. 6). As for claim 10, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package of claim 1, further comprising: a bridge 130 within the substrate (Fig. 1B), a side of the bridge 130 proximate to the first side of the substrate (Fig. 1B), the bridge 130 electrically coupled with at least two of the plurality of dies 140/150 (Fig. 1B). As for claim 12, Pietambaram et al. disclose the package of claim 1, wherein the first side of the substrate includes a redistribution layer (RDL) 132/134, wherein at least one of the plurality of dies is electrically coupled with the RDL (Fig. 1B). As for claim 18, Pietambaram et al. disclose in Fig. 5-6 and the related text a system comprising: a package comprising: a first substrate that includes a glass core 510 vertically between a first build-up layer 533 and a second build-up layer 518, the first substrate with a (upper) first side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side (Fig. 5-6); a plurality of dies 540 coupled with the first side of the first substrate (Fig. 5-6); a through via (left 512/515/517/519/531) 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. 5-6), wherein a maximum width of the through via (portion 515) in the glass core 510 is greater than a maximum width of the through via (portion 531) in the first build-up layer 533 and greater than a maximum width of the through via (portion 519) in the second build-up layer 518; a plurality of through glass vias (TGV) (right 512/515/517/519/531) extending from the first side of the first substrate to the second side of the first substrate and through the glass core (Fig. 5-6), the plurality of TGV including electrically conductive material; and a second substrate 681 with a first (upper) side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side, the second substrate including a plurality of electrical connections 682 between the first side and the second side, the second side of the second substrate electrically coupled with the second side of the first substrate (Fig. 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2015/0027757) in view of Manusharow et al. (US 2014/0264791, as disclosed in previous office action) . As for claim 1, Shin et al. disclose in Fig. 1 and the related text a package comprising: a substrate that includes a glass core 10 vertically between a first build-up layer (layer 30 forms under layer 10) and a second build-up layer (layer 30 forms above layer 10), the substrate with a first (upper) side and a second (lower) side opposite the first side (Fig. 1); and a through via 14 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), wherein a maximum width of the through via in the glass core is greater than a maximum width of the through via in the first build-up layer and greater than a maximum width of the through via in the second build-up layer (Fig. 1). Shin et al. do not disclose a plurality of dies coupled with the first side of the substrate. Manusharow et al. disclose in Fig. 1 and the related text a plurality of dies 14/16 coupled with the first side of a substrate 12. Shin et al. and Manusharow 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 Shin 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 Shin et al. to include the limitations as taught by Manusharow et al., in order to improve density of the device. As for claim 6, Shin et al. disclose the package of claim 1, further comprising: one or more through glass vias (TGV) (left 14/20) extending from the first side of the substrate to the second side of the substrate and through the glass core, the one or more TGV includes electrically conductive material [0026]. Shin et al. in view of Manusharow et al. teach at least one of the plurality of dies is electrically coupled with at least one of the one or more TGV. As for claim 7, Shin et al. disclose the package of claim 6, wherein 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 the invention was made to provide 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. Futhermore, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang , 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As for claim 8, Shin et al. disclose the package of claim 6, wherein the substrate is a first substrate; and further comprising: a second substrate (lower layers 30) 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 (Fig. 1). As for claim 9, Shin et al. disclose the package of claim 8, wherein the second substrate (lower layers 30) is an organic substrate [resin, 0030]. 10. (Original) The package of claim 1, further comprising: a bridge 50 within the substrate (Fig. 1), a side of the bridge 50 proximate to the first side of the substrate (Fig. 1). Shin et al. in view of Manusharow et al. teach bridge 50 electrically coupled with at least two of the plurality of dies. As for claim 11, Shin et al. in view of Manusharow et al. disclosed the package of claim 10, except the bridge is a selected one of: an open cavity bridge (OCB) or an Embedded Multi-die Interconnect Bridge (EMIB). 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]). Shin et al. and Manusharow 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 Shin 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 Shin et al. to include the limitations as taught by Manusharow et al., in order to improve interconnections . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manusharow et al. in view of Shin et al . 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. Manusharow et al. do not disclose a maximum width of the through via in the glass core is greater than a maximum width of the through via in the first build-up layer and greater than a maximum width of the through via in the second build-up layer. Shin et al. teach in Fig. 1 and the related a maximum width of the through via 14 in the glass core 10 is greater than a maximum width of the through via 14 in the first build-up layer (a layer 30 that formed above 10) and greater than a maximum width of the through via 14 in the second build-up layer (a layer 30 that formed under 10). Shin et al. and Manusharow 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 Shin 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 Shin et al. to include the limitations as taught by Manusharow et al., in order to improve performance of the device and device properties. 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). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 2 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 3 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 4 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 5 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 6 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 7 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 8 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 9 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 10 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 11 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 12 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 17/481,234 Page 13 Art Unit: 2811
Prosecution Insights