DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim amendments overcome this rejection and it is therefore withdrawn.
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 10, 18, and 27 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 10 and 18 state that there is carbon in the dielectric layer but the dielectric layer is claimed to be made of silicon oxygen and nitrogen. For examination purposes it will be assumed that since the dielectric contains no carbon then the glass core layer will not contain carbon.
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) 1-14, 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, and Yang, US 9,615,453.
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 silicon and oxygen and nitrogen.
Mori (figure 1) teaches a glass core 2’ with a TGV 5 lined 6 with an insulating layer comprising silicon oxide, silicon nitride or the like (column 7, lines 26-31).
Mori fails to teach the insulating layer includes silicon and oxygen and nitrogen.
Yang (column 8, lines 23-27) teaches a dielectric material can be silicon oxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxyntride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the silicon oxyntride dielectric material of Yang in the invention of Mori, and therefore Lee, because Mori teaches its insulating materials can be silicon oxide, silicon nitride or the like and Yang teaches the equivalence of silicon oxynitride with silicon oxide and silicon nitride. 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).
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 6, Yang teaches the dielectric includes silicon oxynitride (column 8, lines 23-27).
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 dielectric layer comprises more 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 relative carbon content through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
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.
Lee fails to teach a dielectric material between the TGVs and the glass core layer, wherein the dielectric material includes silicon and oxygen and nitrogen.
Mori (figure 1) teaches a glass core 2’ with a TGV 5 lined 6 with an insulating layer comprising silicon oxide, silicon nitride or the like (column 7, lines 26-31).
Mori fails to teach the insulating layer includes silicon and oxygen and nitrogen.
Yang (column 8, lines 23-27) teaches a dielectric material can be silicon oxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxyntride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the silicon oxyntride dielectric material of Yang in the invention of Mori, and therefore Lee, because Mori teaches its insulating materials can be silicon oxide, silicon nitride or the like and Yang teaches the equivalence of silicon oxynitride with silicon oxide and silicon nitride. 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).
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.
In claim 15, Yang teaches the dielectric includes silicon oxynitride (column 8, lines 23-27).
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 carbon through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
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) 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Mori et al., US 7,091,589, in view of Yang, US 9,615,453.
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.
Mori fails to teach the insulating layer includes silicon and oxygen and nitrogen.
Yang (column 8, lines 23-27) teaches a dielectric material can be silicon oxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxyntride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the silicon oxyntride dielectric material of Yang in the invention of Mori because Mori teaches its insulating materials can be silicon oxide, silicon nitride or the like and Yang teaches the equivalence of silicon oxynitride with silicon oxide and silicon nitride. 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 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 28, Yang (column 8, lines 23-27) teaches the dielectric layer includes silicon oxynitride.
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).
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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al., US 7,091,589, in view of Yang, US 9,615,453, 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
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 5/11/26
Prosecution Insights