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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 is objected to because it should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP 608.02(g). For example, paragraph [0003] of the specification refers to FIG. 1 as “a legacy [emphasis added] symmetric substrate build up with high-speed serial input output (I/O) routing on a front side and direct pass-through on a backside.”
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the “interposer” of claims 15 and 18; and
the “substrate” of claim 20
must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. The Examiner notes that the recited “substrate” of claim 20 appears to be different than the substrate described in the specification and illustrated in the drawings which includes, for example, a glass core, a first buildup, and a second buildup. The Examiner also notes that claim 15 from which claim 20 depends already recites these elements.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The Examiner respectfully notes that these objections to the drawings were originally made in the Office Action dated February 10, 2025, and repeated in the Final Office Action dated May 14, 2025 and the Office Action dated October 10, 2025. They were also mentioned in the Advisory Action dated July 22, 2025. The Examiner also respectfully notes that they were not addressed in any of Applicant’s “Amendment Under 37 CFR §1.111” dated April 25, 2025, “Amendment Under 37 CFR § 1.116” dated July 15, 2025, Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application filed on August 14, 2025, or “Amendment Under 37 CFR §1.111” dated January 12, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 15, “and the TGVs outside of a footprint of the die” should be “and the TGV are outside of a footprint of the die”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 15, “and the one or more TGVs outside of a footprint of the die” should be “and the one or more TGV are outside of a footprint of the die”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recite: “a die coupled with the first buildup, the die electrically coupled with the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup, and the TGVs outside of a footprint of the die.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and correction is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. It is unclear what “footprint of the die” means because this language does not appear in the specification and is not defined by the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, does “footprint of the die” mean the portion of a die that couples to the first buildup via one or more connectors? Does “footprint of the die” mean a width of the die? If it means width, then what about dies that have more than one width? Perhaps “footprint of the die” means a surface area of the die? If it means surface area, then what surface area, the bottom surface area, the top surface area, or something else? As other example, it is also unclear what it means for “the TGVs” to be “outside” of the “footprint of the die” because this language also does not appear in the specification and is not defined by the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is additionally unclear based on this recited language, in the case where there are a plurality of “TGV”, how many of the “TGV” have to be “outside” of the “footprint of the die”—e.g., just one “TGV”, two or more “TGV”, or all “TGV”. It is further unclear what “the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup” means because “the one” lacks antecedent basis in clam 1. Perhaps it is referring to one of the layers of the first buildup? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 14-15 of claim 1 as reciting: “a die coupled with the first buildup, the die electrically coupled with one or more layers of the first buildup” because of this ambiguity. Claims 2, 6, and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from independent claim 1.
Claim 7, lines 4-5 recite: “further comprising a die coupled with the first buildup, the die electrically coupled with the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and correction is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it unclear why this recited language was added to amended dependent claim 7 (which depends from claim 6 which was amended to depend from independent claim 1) because it appears to be duplicative with lines 14-15 of amended independent claim 1 which recite: “a die coupled with the first buildup, the die electrically coupled with the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup”. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is unable to determine what lines 4-5 of amended claim 7 recite beyond what is already recited in lines 14-15 of amended independent claim 1 because of this apparent duplication.
Claim 15, lines 14-15 recite: “a die coupled with the first buildup, the die electrically coupled with the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup, and the one or more TGV outside of a footprint of the die.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and correction is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. It is unclear what “footprint of the die” means because this language does not appear in the specification and is not defined by the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, does “footprint of the die” mean the portion of a die that couples to the first buildup via one or more connectors? Does “footprint of the die” mean a width of the die? If it means width, then what about dies that have more than one width? Perhaps “footprint of the die” means a surface area of the die? If it means surface area, then what surface area, the bottom surface area, the top surface area, or something else? As other example, it is also unclear what it means for “the one or more TGV” to be “outside” of the “footprint of the die” because this language also does not appear in the specification and is not defined by the claim such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is additionally unclear based on this recited language, in the case where there are a plurality of “TGV”, how many of the “TGV” have to be “outside” of the “footprint of the die”—e.g., just one “TGV”, two or more “TGV”, or all “TGV”. It is further unclear what “the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup” means because “the one” lacks antecedent basis in clam 15. Perhaps it is referring to one of the layers of the first buildup? If so, then it is unclear whether this one layer includes copper or doesn’t include copper. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 14-15 of claim 15 as reciting: “a die coupled with the first buildup, the die electrically coupled with one or more layers of the first buildup” because of this ambiguity. Claims 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from independent claim 15.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0168536 A1 (Link) in view of US 2018/0156841 A1 (Neely).
Regarding claim 1, Link discloses, A substrate (substrate (150); FIG. 2 [0020]) comprising:
a glass core (glass core (156); annotated FIG. 1, below; [0020] and [0022]) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side (annotated FIG. 1, below), the glass core (156) comprising a single material layer continuous from the first side to the second side (annotated FIG. 1, below);
PNG
media_image1.png
476
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first buildup (first buildup (162); annotated FIG. 2, below; [0020]) coupled with the first side of the glass core (156) (annotated FIG. 2, below), the first buildup (162) including one or more layers (annotated FIG. 2, below);
PNG
media_image2.png
772
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a second buildup (second buildup (164); annotated FIG. 2, above; [0020]) coupled with the second side of the glass core (156) (annotated FIG. 2, above), the second buildup (164) including one or more layers (annotated FIG. 2, above);
wherein a number of the one or more layers of the first buildup (162) is different than a number of the one or more layers of the second buildup (164) (as can be seen in annotated FIG. 2, above, first buildup (162) has six (6) layers and second buildup (164) has three (3) layers);
wherein the glass core (156) further includes one or more through glass vias (TGV) (through glass vias (TGVs) (136); annotated FIG. 2, above, and annotated FIG. 3C, below; [0033]) that extend from the first side of the glass core (156) to the second side the glass core (156) (annotated FIG. 2, above), wherein the one or more TGV (136) are filled with an electrically conductive material (electrically conductive material (144); annotated FIG. 2, above; [[0037]); and
PNG
media_image3.png
401
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a die (die (1656); FIG. 8; [0080]) coupled with the first buildup (162)1, the die (1656) electrically coupled with the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup (162) (electrically coupling via conductive contacts (112); FIG. 1; annotated FIG. 2, above; [0021]).2, and the TGVs outside of a footprint of the die.3
But, Link does not appear to explicitly disclose, that the glass core has a homogeneous material layer.
However, in analogous art, Neely discloses, that it is well-known that a glass core can be homogenous ([0032]). Neely also discloses that it is well-known that a homogenous glass core can provide higher capability for definition of fine lead-to-lead pitch ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Link and Neely before him/her, that it is well-known that the single material layer of the glass core of Link can be homogenous, as taught by Neely, to provide higher capability for definition of fine lead-to-lead pitch, as also taught by Neely. See also, MPEP 2144(IV)—The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Link in view of Neely discloses, The substrate (150) of claim 1, wherein the one or more layers of the first buildup (162) or the one or more layers of the second buildup (164) include copper layers (copper layers (146 and 148); FIG. 2; [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Link in view of Neely discloses, The substrate (150) of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more layers of the first buildup (162) are electrically coupled with one of the one or more TGV (136) (146 and 148; FIG. 2; [0024]; [0039]; 146 and 148 in the layers of 162 are electrically coupled with conductive material (144) in TGV (136)); and wherein at least one of the one or more layers of the second buildup (164) are electrically coupled with the one of the one or more TGV (136) (146 and 148; FIG. 2; [0024]; [0039]; 146 and 148 in the layers of 164 are electrically coupled with conductive material (144) in TGV (136)).
Regarding claim 7, Link in view of Neely discloses, The substrate (150) of claim 6, wherein the number of the one or more layers of the first buildup (162) is greater than the number of the one or more layers of the second buildup (164) (in annotated FIG. 2, above, there are six (6) layers in first buildup (162) and three (3) layers in second buildup (164), six (6) is greater than three (3)); and
further comprising a die (die (1656); FIG. 8; [0080]) coupled with the first buildup (162)4, the die (1656) electrically coupled with the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup (162) (electrically coupling via conductive contacts (112); FIG. 1; annotated FIG. 2, above; [0021]).5
Regarding claim 15, Link discloses, A package (package (1650); FIG. 8; [0078]) comprising:
an interposer (interposer (1657); FIG. 8; [0078]) that includes:
a glass core (glass core (156); FIG. 2; [0020]; [0022]) with a first side and a second side opposite the first side (annotated FIG. 2, above), the glass core (156) comprising a single material layer continuous from the first side to the second side (annotated FIG. 1, above);
a first buildup (first buildup (162); FIG. 2; [0020]) coupled with the first side of the glass core (156) (annotated FIG. 2, above), the first buildup including a plurality of layers (annotated FIG. 2, above) that include at least one copper layer (copper layers (146) and (148); FIG. 2; [0024]);
a second buildup (second buildup (164); FIG. 2; [0020]) coupled with the second side of the glass core (156) (annotated FIG. 2, above), the second buildup including a plurality of layers (annotated FIG. 2, above) that include at least one copper layer (146 and 148; FIG. 2; [0024]); and
wherein a number of the plurality of layers of the first buildup (162) is greater than a number of the plurality of layers of the second buildup (164) (in annotated FIG. 2, above, there are six (6) layers in first buildup (162) and three (3) layers in second buildup (164), six (6) is greater than three (3)) wherein the glass core (156) further includes one or more through glass vias (TGV) (through glass via (TGV) (136); annotated FIG. 2, above, and annotated FIG. 3C, above; [0033]) that extend from the first side of the glass core (156) to the second side of the glass core (156) (annotated FIG. 2, above), and wherein the one or more TGV (136) are filled with copper (copper (140); annotated FIG. 3F, below; [0036]);
PNG
media_image4.png
396
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a die (die (1656); FIG. 8; [0080]) coupled with the first buildup (162),6 the die (1656) electrically coupled with the one of the one or more layers of the first buildup (162) (electrically coupling via conductive contacts (112); FIG. 1; annotated FIG. 2, above; [0021])7, and the one or more TGV outside of a footprint of the die.8
But, Link does not appear to explicitly disclose, that the glass core has a homogeneous material layer.
However, in analogous art, Neely discloses, that it is well-known that a glass core can be homogenous ([0032]). Neely also discloses that it is well-known that a homogenous glass core can provide higher capability for definition of fine lead-to-lead pitch ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Link and Neely before him/her, that it is well-known that the single material layer of the glass core of Link can be homogenous, as taught by Neely, to provide higher capability for definition of fine lead-to-lead pitch, as also taught by Neely. See also, MPEP 2144(IV), above.
Regarding claim 17, Link in view of Neely discloses, The package (1650) of claim 15, wherein at least one of the plurality of layers of the first buildup (162) is electrically coupled with one of the one or more TGV (136) filled with copper (146 and 148; FIG. 2; [0024]; [0039]; 146 and 148 in the layers of first buildup (162) are electrically coupled with 144 in TGV 136), and wherein at least one of the plurality of layers of the second buildup (164) is electrically coupled with the one of the one or more TGV (136) filled with copper (146 and 148; FIG. 2; [0024]; [0039]; 146 and 148 in the layers of second buildup (164) are electrically coupled with 144 in TGV (136)).
Regarding claim 18, Link in view of Neely discloses, The package (1650) of claim 15, wherein the interposer (1657) includes a first pad (first pad (148); annotated FIG. 2, above; [0024]) on the first buildup (162) and a second pad (second pad (148); annotated FIG. 2, above; [0024]) on the second buildup (164), wherein the first pad (148) and the second pad (148) are electrically coupled through one of the one or more TGV (136) filled with copper (first and second pads (148) are electrically couped through TGV (136) by 140, 144 and 148; annotated FIG. 2, above).
Regarding claim 19, Link in view of Neely discloses, The package (1650) of claim 18, wherein the die (1656) is electrically coupled with the first pad (148) (annotated FIG. 2, above) (conductive contact (112); FIG. 1; annotated FIG. 2, above; [0021]).9
Regarding claim 20, Link in view of Neely discloses, The package (1650) of claim 15, wherein the second buildup (164) is electrically or physically coupled with a substrate (substrate (1652); FIG. 8; [0078] and [0081]).10
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 5 and 8 and amendment of claim 18 in the “Amendment Under 37 CFR §1.111” dated January 12, 2026 (hereinafter the “Reply”) have overcome the rejection of claims 5, 8, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Office Action dated October 10, 2025 (hereinafter the “Office Action”). Applicant's amendments to independent claims 1 and 15 and arguments with respect thereto in the Reply have been fully considered, but they are not deemed persuasive, for at least the reasons detailed above. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, and 17-20 remain rejected, as detailed above.
For example, regarding the amended language “and the TGVs outside of a footprint of the die” added to independent claim 1 and the amended language “and the one or more TGV outside of a footprint of the die” added to independent claim 15, pages seven (7)-eleven (11) of the Reply do not appear to indicate where there is support in Applicant’s originally filed application to support this amended language. Also, as detailed above, this added language is indefinite. Additionally, depending on how this indefinite language is interpreted, Link may actually disclose this amended limitation, as illustrated, for example, in annotated FIG. 7, thereof, below.
PNG
media_image5.png
577
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has thrice failed to address the objections to the drawings, as detailed above. The Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please address these objections and rejections in its next reply. Please see, e.g., 37 CFR 1.111(b).
To facilitate compact prosecution, the Examiner also respectfully requests that Applicant please consider initiating a telephone interview with the Examiner to discuss additional amendments to the claims that Applicant would like to propose to overcome the rejections thereof, prior to submitting a written response to this final Office Action. The Examiner is available at the telephone number indicated below.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Substrate (150) may correspond to substrate (1652) in FIG. 8, as noted, for example, in paragraphs [0020] and [0078] of Link. Substrate (1652) includes conductive contacts (1663) ([0080]). Die (1656) may be coupled to conductive contacts (1663) via first-level interconnects (1665) ([0081]).
2 As noted above, substrate (150) includes first buildup (162) which includes one or more layers, so corresponding substrate (1652) also includes a first buildup with one or more layers. Substrate (1652) includes conductive contacts (112) that interconnect with die (1656), thereby electrically coupling die (1656) with the one or more layers of first buildup (162).
3 Please see rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 112(b), above, for how claim 1 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
4 Substrate (150) may correspond to substrate (1652) in FIG. 8, as noted, for example, in paragraphs [0020] and [0078] of Link. Substrate (1652) includes conductive contacts (1663) ([0080]). Die (1656) may be coupled to conductive contacts (1663) via first-level interconnects (1665) ([0081]).
5 Please see rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC § 112(b), above, for how claim 7 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Also, as noted above, substrate (150) includes first buildup (162) which includes one or more layers, so corresponding substrate (1652) also includes a first buildup with one or more layers. Substrate (1652) includes conductive contacts (112) that interconnect with die (1656), thereby electrically coupling die (1656) with the one or more layers of first buildup (162).
6 Substrate (150) may correspond to interposer (1657) in FIG. 8, as noted, for example, in paragraphs [0020] and [0078] of Link. Die (1656) is coupled to Interposer (1657) via conductive contacts (1654) of die (1656), first-level interconnects (1658), and conductive contacts (1660) of interposer (1657) ([0082]).
7 As noted above, substrate (150) includes first buildup (162) which includes one or more layers, so corresponding substrate (1652) also includes a first buildup with one or more layers. Substrate (1652) includes conductive contacts (112) that interconnect with die (1656), thereby electrically coupling die (1656) with the one or more layers of first buildup (162).
8 Please see rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC § 112(b), above, for how claim 15 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
9 Substrate (150) may correspond to interposer (1657) in FIG. 8, as noted, for example, in paragraphs [0020] and [0078] of Link. Die (1656) is electrically coupled to Interposer (1657) via conductive contacts (1654) of die (1656), first-level interconnects (1658), and conductive contacts (1660) of interposer (1657) ([0082]). Interposer (1657) includes conductive contacts (112) that interconnect with die (1656), thereby electrically coupling die (1656) with the first pad of interposer 1657.
10 Interposer (1657) is coupled to substrate (1652) via conductive contacts (1661) of interposer (1657), first-level interconnects (1665), and conductive contacts (1663) of substrate (1652), thereby electrically and/or physically coupling second buildup (164) of interposer (1657) with substrate (1652).
Prosecution Insights