DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments filed 12/30/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 below using a different portion of Mori et al., US 7,091,589, specifically figure 13E instead of figure 2.
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 6, 15 and 28 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 28, which depends from claims 26, appears to contradict the limitations of the dielectric material recited in claim 26. Claims 26 recites the dielectric material includes carbon, but claim 28 recites it include one or more of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, which are not carbon containing, and silicon carbide. Therefore claim 28 allows for the dielectric material to only comprise one or more of silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride, which fails to meet the claim requirement of including a carbon.
For examination purposes it will be assumed that the claim requires silicon carbide alone or in combination with silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride.
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(s) 15, 7-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., 10,903,170, in view of Mori et al., US 7,091,589.
Regarding claim 1, Lee (figure 12D) teaches an integrated circuit apparatus comprising:
a glass core layer 111a;
a plurality of through-glass vias (TGVs) 113a comprising conductive metal 113a and extending from a first side of the glass core layer 111a to a second side of the glass core layer 111a opposite the first side;
a buildup layer 111b/113b/112b on the first side of the glass core layer 111a, the buildup layer comprising:
a plurality of metallization layers 113b/112b connected by metal pillars 113b/112b, at least one metallization layer 113b/112b of the buildup layer coupled to the TGVs 113a; and
an encapsulated bridge 120A comprising circuitry to interconnect multiple integrated circuit dies 130/140.
Lee fails to teach a dielectric material between the TGVs and the glass core layer, wherein the dielectric material includes carbon.
Mori (figure 13E) teaches a dielectric material 26 between the TGVs 25 and the glass core layer 22’, wherein the dielectric material 6 includes carbon (column 16, line 56-column 17, line 3 teaches benzocyclobutene resin, cardo resin, or polyimide resin, which are carbon containing materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the dielectric material of Mori in the invention of Lee because Mori teaches it is an insulating materials that insulates the TSV 25 from the glass core layer.
Further, Lee, which teaches resins mixed or impregnated with glass fibers such as ABF and FR-4 (column 10, lines 6-18), doesn’t teach the core layer is only glass.
Mori (column 6, lines 65-67) teaches the core layer 2’ can be made of glass or a glass-epoxy composite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the glass core layer of Mori in the invention of Lee because Mori teaches the equivalence between the two types of core layers. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 2, Lee (figure 6) teaches a first integrated circuit die 130 coupled to the encapsulated bridge 120A; and a second integrated circuit die 140 coupled to the encapsulated bridge 120A.
As to claim 3, Lee (figure 6) teaches the encapsulated bridge 120A comprises passive 126 and active circuitry 125.
In re claim 4, Lee (figure 6) teaches the encapsulated bridge 120A comprises metal vias 126P/123 extending from a first side of the bridge 120A to a second side of the bridge 120A opposite the first side.
Concerning claim 5, Lee (figure 6) teaches the buildup layer 111b/113b/112b is a first buildup layer and the apparatus further comprises a second buildup layer 111c/113c/112c on a second side of the glass core layer 111a, the second buildup layer 111c/113c/112c comprising a plurality of metallization layers 113c/112c connected by metal pillars 113c/112c, at least one metallization layer 113c/112c of the second buildup layer 111c/113c/112c coupled to the TGVs 111a.
In claim 7, though Mori fails to teach the dielectric material 6 has a thickness between 25 - 250 nm, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the thickness through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Mori (figure 2) teaches the dielectric material 6 completely covers a surface of the first side of the glass core layer 2’ and a surface of the second side of the glass core layer 2’.
With respect to claim 9, Mori (figure 2) teaches there is no metal in contact with the glass core layer 2’. Mori (figure 2) teaches the dielectric 6 completely coats the entire surface of the core layer 2’.
As to claim 10, though Mori fails to teach the dielectric layer 6 comprises more carbon than the glass core layer 2’, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount of nitrogen or carbon through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Note one could say Mori teaches less carbon because it teaches SiN (column 7, lines 26-30).
In re claim 11, Lee (figure 6) teaches a system comprising:
a multi-die integrated device comprising:
a glass core layer 2’;
a plurality of through-glass vias (TGVs) 5 comprising conductive metal 5 and extending from a first side of the glass core layer 2’ to a second side of the glass core layer 2’ opposite the first side;
a buildup layer 111b/113b/112b on the first side of the glass core layer 2’, the buildup layer 111b/113b/112b comprising a plurality of metallization layers 113b/112b connected by metal pillars 113b/112b, at least one metallization layer 113b/112b of the buildup layer 111b/113b/112b coupled to the TGVs 5, and an encapsulated bridge 120A comprising circuitry 125/126P to interconnect multiple integrated circuit dies 130/140;
a plurality of integrated circuit dies 130/140 on a side of the buildup layer 111b/113b/112b opposite the glass core layer 2’, the integrated circuit dies 130/140 coupled to the encapsulated bridge 120A.
Lee fails to teach a dielectric material between the TGVs and the glass core layer, wherein the dielectric material includes carbon.
Mori (figure 13E) teaches a dielectric material 26 between the TGVs 25 and the glass core layer 22’, wherein the dielectric material 6 includes carbon (column 16, line 56-column 17, line 3 teaches benzocyclobutene resin, cardo resin, or polyimide resin, which are carbon containing materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the dielectric material of Mori in the invention of Lee because Mori teaches it is an insulating materials that insulates the TSV 25 from the glass core layer.
Concerning claim 12, Lee (figure 6) teaches the encapsulated bridge 120A comprises passive 126 and active circuitry 125.
Pertaining to claim 13, Lee (figure 6) teaches the encapsulated bridge 120A comprises metal vias 126P/123 extending from a first side of the bridge 120A to a second side of the bridge 120A opposite the first side.
In claim 14, wherein the buildup layer is a first buildup layer 111b/113b/112b and the multi-die integrated device further comprises a second buildup layer 111c/113c/112c on a second side of the glass core layer 2’, the second buildup layer 111c/113c/112c comprising a plurality of metallization layers 113c/112c connected by metal pillars 113c/112c, at least one metallization layer 113c/112c of the second buildup layer 111c/113c/112c coupled to the TGVs 5.
With respect to claim 16, Mori (figure 2) teaches the dielectric material 6 completely covers a surface of the first side of the glass core layer 2’ and a surface of the second side of the glass core layer 2’.
As to claim 17, Mori (figure 2) teaches there is no metal in contact with the glass core layer 2’. Mori (figure 2) teaches the dielectric 6 completely coats the entire surface of the core layer 2’.
In re claim 18, though Mori fails to teach the dielectric layer 6 comprises more carbon than the glass core layer 22’, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount of nitrogen or carbon through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Note one could say Mori teaches less carbon because it teaches SiN (column 7, lines 26-30).
Concerning claim 19, though Lee fails to teach a main circuit board coupled to the multi-die integrated circuit device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a main circuit board in the invention of Lee because a main circuit board is a conventionally known and used next level of integration attached to the multi-die integrated circuit device 100A of Lee (figure 2). The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., 10,903,170, in view of Mori et al., US 7,091,589 as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Li et al., US 2011/0248405.
Pertaining to claims 6 and 15, Mori (figure 13E) fails to teach the dielectric material 26 includes one or more of silicon nitride (column 7, line 26-28), silicon oxynitride, and silicon carbide (assumed to mean it includes silicon carbide and one or more of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride as detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above).
Li (figure 3E) teaches a glass core 302 with a dielectric layer 314 within the TSV’s 306, wherein the dielectric layer is silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or silicon carbide (paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the silicon carbide of Li in the invention of Mori because Li teaches it improves adhesion and is an equivalent to silicon nitride and silicon oxide. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
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) 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Mori et al., US 7,091,589.
Pertaining to claim 26, Mori (figure 13E) teaches an integrated circuit apparatus comprising:
a glass (column 6, lines 65-67) core layer 22’;
a plurality of through-glass vias (TGVs) 25 comprising conductive metal 25 and extending from a first side of the glass core layer 22’ to a second side of the glass core layer 22’ opposite the first side;
dielectric material 26 between the TGVs 25 and the glass core layer 22’, wherein the dielectric material includes carbon (column 16, line 56-column 17, line 3);
first metallization layers 25b/27a/27b28/a/28b on the first side of the glass core layer 22’; and
second metallization layers 25a on the second side of the glass core layer 22’;
wherein the TGVs 25 conductively coupled the first metallization layers 25b/27a/27b/28a/28b and the second metallization layers 25a.
Regarding claim 30, Mori (figure 2) teaches there is no metal in contact with the glass core layer 2’. The dielectric layer 6 completely covers the glass core.
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al., US 7,091,589, as applied to claim 26 above.
With respect to claim 27, though Mori fails to teach the dielectric layer 26 comprises more nitrogen or carbon than the glass core layer, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount of nitrogen or carbon through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Note one could say Mori teaches less carbon because it teaches SiN (column 7, lines 26-30).
As to claim 29, though Mori fails to teach the dielectric material has a thickness between 25 - 250 nm, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the thickness through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mori et al., US 7,091,589 as applied to claims 26 above, and further in view of Li et al., US 2011/0248405.
In claim 28, Mori (figure 13E) fails to teach the dielectric material 26 includes one or more of silicon nitride (column 7, line 26-28), silicon oxynitride, and silicon carbide (assumed to mean it includes silicon carbide and one or more of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride as detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above).
Li (figure 3E) teaches a glass core 302 with a dielectric layer 314 within the TSV’s 306, wherein the dielectric layer is silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or silicon carbide (paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the silicon carbide of Li in the invention of Mori because Li teaches it improves adhesion and is an equivalent to silicon nitride and silicon oxide. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al., US 7,091,589, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Lee et al., 10,903,170.
In re claim 31, Mori fails to teach an encapsulated bridge comprising circuitry to interconnect multiple integrated circuit dies.
Lee (figure 6) teaches an encapsulated bridge 120A comprising circuitry to interconnect multiple integrated circuit dies 130/140.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the encapsulated bridge of Lee in the invention of Mori because Lee teaches it is a conventionally known use of the integrated circuit apparatus of Mori. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
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 should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE at(571)272-1937. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 2/11/26