DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communication filed 24 April 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-13 and 15-25 are pending in the application. Claims 12-13 and 15-22 stand withdrawn as pertaining to a nonelected invention.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 24 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claims 1-11 and 23-25 under 35 USC §102(a)(2) and §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Clements.
Applicant's arguments regarding the restriction/rejoinder of claims 12-13 and 15-22, filed 24 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-11 and 23-25 are not in condition for allowance, therefore claims 12-13 and 15-22 are not rejoined.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements (US 4954875 A), hereinafter referred to as Clements, in view of Ma et al. (US 20110147059 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ma et al.
Regarding claim 1, Clements teaches a package substrate, comprising:
a core (13-14) (Fig. 1 and column 5, line 55: stack of wafers 10-18, with layers 13 and 14 at the center of the stack), comprising:
a first sub-core layer (14) (Fig. 1 and column 5, line 55);
PNG
media_image1.png
233
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second sub-core layer (13) (Fig. 1 and column 5, line 55);
a via (25) through the first sub-core layer (13) and the second sub-core layer (14) (Fig. 1 and column 6, lines 4-5: vias 25), and comprises a first portion (25) having a first hourglass shape in the first sub-core layer (13) and a second portion (25) having a second hourglass shape in the second sub-core layer (14) (Figs. 1 and 12 and column 6, lines 4-5: vias 25 are hourglass shaped), the first hourglass shape (25) and the second hourglass shape (25) filled with a conductive material in a cross-sectional perspective (see Figs. 11-12 and column 7, lines 45-59);
a front-side buildup layer over the core (18) (Fig. 1 and column 5, line 55: uppermost layer 18 formed over core layers 11-17); and
a backside buildup layer (10) under the core (Fig. 1 and column 5, line 55: layer 10 formed under core layers 11-17).
Clements does not teach that the via (25) is a single structure continuous through the first sub-core layer (13) and the second sub-core layer (14) and that the vias are completely filled. Ma et al. does teach that the via (160) is a single structure continuous through the first sub-core layer and the second sub-core layer (Ma et al. Fig. 1B and paragraph 39: the via 160 extends through core layers 157a-157c) and that the vias (160) are completely filled (Ma et al. paragraph 35: hole 165 is filled by conductive material 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the via of Clements as a single structure continuous through the first and second sub-core layers because the continuous via of Ma et al. improves adhesion between the core layers (see Ma et al. paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 4, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first sub-core layer (14) and the second sub-core layer (13) are substantially similar (Figs. 2-11 and column 6, lines 26-33: each layer 10-18 is formed by the same process, resulting in a substantially similar thickness in each layer).
Regarding claim 7, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the core further comprises a third sub-core layer (15) (Fig. 1 and column 5, line 55: stack of wafers 10-18); a fourth sub-core layer (12) (Fig. 1 and column 5, line 55: stack of wafers 10-18), wherein the via (25) passes through the third sub-core layer (15) and the fourth sub-core layer (12) (Figs. 1 and 12 and column 6, lines 4-5: vias 25 formed through layers 10-18).
Regarding claim 10, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the maximum diameter of the via (25) is approximately 100 µm or less (column 7, lines 17-29: the diameter of the via 25 is approximately 10mil or 108 µm).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements in view of Ma et al., in further view of Iwai et al. (US 20200203266 A1), hereinafter referred to as Iwai et al.
Regarding claim 2, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach an adhesive between the first sub-core layer and the second sub-core layer.
Iwai et al. does teach adhesive (170) between the first sub-core layer (100) and the second sub-core layer (100) (Fig. 13, paragraph 75: adhesive layer 170 between each pair of glass layers 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adhesive such as the one taught by Iwai et al. between the sub-core layers of Clements because an adhesive would improve the reliability of the board (Iwai et al. paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 5, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 4, but does not teach that the thicknesses of the first sub-core layer and the second sub-core layer are approximately 100µm or less.
Iwai et al. does teach that the thicknesses of the first sub-core layer (100) and the second sub-core layer (100) are approximately 100 µm or less (paragraph 82: each layer 100 is approximately 100 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sub-core layers of Clements with thicknesses of approximately 100 µm as taught by Iwai et al. because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that a first signal trace is in the front- side buildup layer, and wherein a second signal trace is in the backside buildup layer.
Iwai et al. does teach a first signal trace (131) is in the front-side buildup layer (100), and wherein a second signal trace (131) is in the backside buildup layer (100) (paragraph 103: conductive traces 131 on the surfaces of the layers 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the package substrate of Clements with conductive traces as taught by Iwai et al. to improve or modify the functionality of the device according to the needs of the designer (Iwai et al. paragraph 103).
Regarding claim 9, Clements in view of Iwai et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 8, wherein a signal for the second signal trace passes through the core (Iwai et al. paragraph 103: the conductor 131 passes through the through hole 120 as conductors 140, 150).
Regarding claim 11, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 10, but does not teach that the maximum diameter of the via is approximately 75µm or less.
Iwai et al. does teach that the maximum diameter of the via (120) is approximately 75 µm or less (paragraph 83: the vias 120 have opening diameters of 20 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vias of Clements with a maximum diameter of 75 µm or less as taught by Iwai et al. because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements in view of Ma et al., in further view of Kim et al. (US 20150083476 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim et al.
Regarding claim 3, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches the package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that the first sub-core layer and the second sub-core layer comprise a fiber reinforced material.
Kim et al. does teach that the first sub-core layer and the second sub-core layer comprise a fiber reinforced material (Kim et al. paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the insulating layers of Clements in view of Ma et al. from a glass-fiber reinforced resin as taught by Kim et al. because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clements in view of Ma et al., in further view of Kim (US 20130120952 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim (2013).
Regarding claim 6, Clements in view of Ma et al. teaches package substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that a thickness of the first sub-core layer is different than a thickness of the second sub-core layer.
Kim (2013) does teach that a thickness of the first sub-core layer [220a] is different than a thickness of the second sub-core layer [220b] (Kim (2013) Fig. 7 and paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the core layers of Clements in view of Ma et al. with differing thicknesses as taught by Kim (2013) because changing the thicknesses of the layers allows the designer to tailor the CTEs of the layers to suit the design of the board (Kim (2013) paragraph 63). Further, a change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. in view of Clements.
Regarding claim 23, Ma et al. teaches an electronic system comprising:
a board (see Ma et al. abstract: lower side of package 100 is coupled to a circuit board);
a package substrate (100) coupled to the board (Fig. 1B and paragraph 32: package 100), wherein the package substrate (100) comprises:
a first sub-core layer (157a) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33: core layer 157a);
a second sub-core layer (157b) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33: core layer 157b);
vias (160) through the first sub-core layer (157a) and the second sub-core layer (157b) (Fig. 1B and paragraph 35: conductors 160 extending through core 150), wherein the vias (160) are each a single structure continuous through the first sub-core layer (157a) and the second sub-core layer (157b) (Ma et al. Fig. 1B and paragraph 39: the via 160 extends through core layers 157a-157c), and the vias (160) are completely filled with a conductive material (Fig. 1B and paragraph 33); and
a die (210) coupled to the package substrate (100) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 54: IC die 210 may be coupled to the upper surface of package substrate 100).
Ma et al. does not teach that the vias comprise a first portion having a first hourglass shape in the first sub-core layer and a second portion having a second hourglass shape in the second sub-core layer. Clements does teach that the vias comprise a first portion having a first hourglass shape in the first sub-core layer and a second portion having a second hourglass shape in the second sub-core layer (see Clements Fig. 12 and column 7, lines 30-44: the vias 25 have an hourglass shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vias of Ma et al. with an hourglass shaped portion in each of the sub-core layers as taught by Clements because the hourglass shape provides additional surface area for pad connections and connections between via portions (Clements column 7, lines 45-50).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. in view of Clements, in further view of Maruyama et al. (US 20110024172 A1), hereinafter referred to as Maruyama et al.
Regarding claim 24, Ma et al. in view of Clements teaches the electronic system of claim 23, but does not teach that the die has bumps with a first pitch and wherein the vias have the first pitch.
Maruyama et al. does teach that the die has bumps with a first pitch and wherein the vias have the first pitch (Maruyama et al. Fig. 1 and paragraph 150: each solder bump 3 is connected to an electrode on one of the vias 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the die bumps with the same pitch as the via as taught by Maruyama et al. because such an arrangement provides each terminal of the die access to the internal layers of the board (Maruyama et al. paragraph 150).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. in view of Clements, in further view of Iwai et al.
Regarding claim 25, Ma et al. in view of Clements teaches the electronic system of claim 23, further comprising: an adhesive between the first sub-core layer and the second sub-core layer.
Iwai et al. does teach Iwai et al. does teach adhesive (170) between the first sub-core layer (100) and the second sub-core layer (100) (Fig. 13, paragraph 75: adhesive layer 170 between each pair of glass layers 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adhesive such as the one taught by Iwai et al. between the sub-core layers of Clements because an adhesive would improve the reliability of the board (Iwai et al. paragraph 75).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al. (US 20110147059 A1) discloses a via 160 that is a single continuous structure through layers 157a, 157b, and 157b
Hara et al. (US 6566232 B1) discloses a via 34 that is a single continuous structure through layers 10a, 10b, and 10c
Choi et al. (US 7786573 B2) discloses vias 150a and 150b which are single continuous structures through layers 120, 130, 140
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
/JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights