Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/707,366

THIN CLIENT FORM FACTOR ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 29, 2022
Examiner
TRAN, THANH Y
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
791 granted / 919 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
935
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 919 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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)(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. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pagaila et al. (U.S 2011/0024888 A1) (of record). As to claim 1, Pagaila et al. disclose in Fig. 10 an electronic system comprising: a printed circuit board (comprising “substrate material” 122, “insulating layers” 124, 126, “conductive layers” 128, 130) (Fig. 10, para. [0040]-[0042]); a substrate (“semiconductor die”/“component”/“interposer” 274) having a top side (top surface) and a bottom side (bottom side), at least a portion of the bottom side (bottom surface) coupled to the printed circuit board (comprising “substrate material” 122, “insulating layers” 124, 126, “conductive layers” 128, 130) (Fig. 10, para. [0066]-[0068]); at least one memory unit (“semiconductor die”/“component” 286 can be “memory” circuit, para. [0069]) connected to the bottom side (bottom surface) of the substrate (“semiconductor die”/“component”/“interposer” 274) (Fig. 10, para. [0069]); at least one processor (“semiconductor die”/“component” 296 can be “signal processing circuit”, para. [0071]) connected to the top side (top surface) of the substrate (“semiconductor die”/“component”/“interposer” 274) (Fig. 10, para. [0071]); and wherein the at least one memory unit (“semiconductor die”/“component” 286) is connected with the processor (“semiconductor die”/“component” 296) through the substrate (“semiconductor die”/“component”/“interposer” 274) (Fig. 10, para. [0067], [0069], [0071]). As to claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Pagaila et al. disclose in Fig. 10 all claimed limitations including the electronic system further comprising: a cavity (see a cavity having a die 286, Fig. 10) in the printed circuit board (comprising “substrate material” 122, “insulating layers” 124, 126, “conductive layers” 128, 130) (see Fig. 10); the at least one memory unit (“semiconductor die”/“component” 286) is within the cavity (see a cavity having a die 286, Fig. 10) in the printed circuit board (comprising “substrate material” 122, “insulating layers” 124, 126, “conductive layers” 128, 130) (see Fig. 10, para. [0069]); and the at least one memory unit (“semiconductor die”/“component” 286) is connected to the bottom side (bottom surface) of the substrate (“semiconductor die”/“component”/“interposer” 274) with solder (“bump” 288) (Fig. 10, para. [0069]). As to claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, Pagaila et al. disclose in Fig. 10 all claimed limitations including the limitation: wherein the at least one memory unit (“semiconductor die”/“component” 286) is a packaged memory (see Fig. 10, para. [0069]). 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. 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. Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pagaila et al. (U.S 2011/0024888 A1) (of record) in view of Li (U.S 2012/0187578 A1) (of record). As to claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Pagaila et al. disclose in Fig. 10 all claimed limitations except for the limitation: wherein the printed circuit board is coupled to the substrate with solder. Li discloses in Fig. 1 an electronic package/system comprising: the printed circuit board (180) is coupled to the substrate (102) with solder (“solder pad array” 124) (see Fig. 1, para. [0012]-[0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify reference of Pagaila et al. by having a printed circuit board coupled to the substrate with solder, as taught by Li, in order to provide high-density connections, reduce component damage from heat, and improve thermal dissipation, so as to improve high-performance electronic package/system. As to claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Pagaila et al. disclose in Fig. 10 all claimed limitations except for the limitation: wherein a heat spreader is disposed on the top side of the substrate and covering the processor. Li discloses in Fig. 1 an electronic package/system comprising: a heat spreader (“air-cooled heatsink” 168) is disposed on the top side (top surface) of the substrate (“multi-layered substrate” 102) and covering the processor (“logic circuitry” 160 can be a “host processor”, para. [0029]) (Fig. 1, para. [0011]-[0012], [0029], [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify reference of Pagaila et al. by providing a heat spreader which is disposed on the top side of the substrate and covering the processor, as taught by Li, in order to release heat from the top of the electronic package/system, that may toward the printed circuit board (PCB) (see para. [0030] in Li). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the substrate 122 in Pagaila is not a printed circuit board (PCB). In response, Applicant’s argument is respectfully traversed because one skilled in the art would have known that Fig. 10 of Pagaila clearly discloses that a package substrate (comprising “substrate material” 122, “insulating layers” 124, 126, and “conductive layers” 128, 130) can be considered a type of a printed circuit board (PCB) because it has at least electrical traces or electrical connections (“conductive layers” 128, 130). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH Y TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-10pm (flex) (PST). 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 at (571)272-5055. 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. /Thanh Y. Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 7, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 28, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603124
METHODS OF FORMING MICROELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599032
BILAYER MEMORY STACKING WITH LINES SHARED BETWEEN BOTTOM AND TOP MEMORY LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593732
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588550
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT INTERCONNECT WITH EMBEDDED DIE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12557614
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD, AND SUBSTRATE REUSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 919 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month