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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 04/29/2026 has been entered in the record and considered. With respect to the rejection claims 35 USC 102 (a)(1) is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendments. The following new rejection to claims 1-10 is under 35 USC 103(a). Claims 1-25 are under consideration. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
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 1-10 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 recites that “the second pad, the first pad, and the via comprise the same continuous material.” In the last line. The scope of “same continuous material” is unclear because the specification describes formation of the via and pad using a single plating process (e.g., paragraphs 00103 and 00175), but does not explain whether such process results in a single continuous material body extending through the recited structures or merely structures formed during the same manufacturing operation. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claim requires material continuity, common composition, integral formation, or another structural relationship.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub # 2020/0154566 to Iwai et al. (Iwai) in view of Pub # 2015/0334823 to Hu.
Regarding independent claim 1, Iwai discloses a package substrate (Fig. 7: 500), comprising:
a core (Fig. 7: 11), wherein the core comprises glass (¶0033);
a first layer (41) under the core (11);
a second layer (40) over the core (11);
a via (51) through the core (11), the first layer (41), and the second layer (40), wherein a width of the via (51) through the core (11) is equal to a width of the via (51) through the first layer (41) and the second layer (40);
a first pad (34) under the via (51); and
a second pad (24) over the via (51).
Iwai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second pad, the first pad and the via comprise a same continuous material.
Hu discloses wherein the second pad (see Fig. 2E with respect to Fig. 1A: 132 on the top of 115), the first pad (132 on the bottom of 115) and the via (115) comprise a same continuous material (¶0016; this is considered substantially analogous to applicant’s own same continuous material).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the second pad, the first pad and the via of Iwai with the same continuous material as taught by Hu so as to electrically connect the contact pads and the electrical connections such as through-glass via interconnects and also to reduce costs per package (¶0016).
Regarding claim 7, Iwai discloses comprising:
a first buildup layer (Fig. 7: 31) under the first layer (41); and
a second buildup layer (Fig. 7: 21) over the second layer (40).
Regarding claim 8, Iwai discloses wherein the first pad (34) is in the first buildup layer (31), and wherein the second pad (24) is in the second buildup layer (21).
Regarding claim 9, Iwai discloses wherein a width of the first pad (34) and the second pad (24) is greater than a width of the via (51) through the first layer (41) and the second layer (40).
Regarding claim 10, Iwai discloses wherein a centerline of a portion of the via (Fig. 7: 51) through the core (11) is aligned with a centerline of the via (51) through the first layer (41) and the second layer (40) (See Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai in view of Hu and further in view of US Pub # 2022/0192017 to Ko.
Regarding claim 2, Iwai and Hu disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Iwai and Hu fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first layer and the second layer comprise a photoimageable dielectric (PID).
Ko discloses wherein the first layer (Fig. 4A: 12) and the second layer (12) comprise a photoimageable dielectric (PID).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the dielectric layer of Iwai with the material of the dielectric layer as taught by Ko in order to transmit signal (¶36), as PID materials were well known for use in package substrate build-up layers at the time of the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai in view of Hu and further in view of US Pub # 2022/0093517 to Aleksov et al. (Aleksov).
Regarding claim 3, Iwai and Hu disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Iwai and Hu fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first layer and the second layer comprise silicon and nitrogen.
Aleksov discloses wherein the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 44: 108) comprise silicon and nitrogen.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the dielectric layer of Iwai with the material of the dielectric layer as taught by Aleksov in order to improve the strength of the mechanical interface (¶0047).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai in view of Hu and further in view of US Pub # 2020/0273763 to Tsuchida.
Regarding claim 4, Iwai and Hu disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Iwai and Hu fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first layer and the second layer comprise titanium and nitrogen.
Tsuchida disclose wherein the first layer and the second layer comprise titanium and nitrogen (Fig. 2: 20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the dielectric layer of Iwai with the material of the dielectric layer as taught by Tsuchida in order to enhance the adhesion with the glass plate (¶0062).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai in view of Hu and further in view of US Pub # 2023/0207332 to Strong et al. (Strong).
Regarding claim 5, Iwai and Hu disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Iwai and Hu fail to explicitly disclose wherein the via comprises an hourglass shaped cross-section through the core.
Strong discloses wherein the via (Fig. 4A: 417) comprises an hourglass shaped cross-section (¶0036) through the core (¶410).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the via of Iwai with the hourglass shaped cross-section as taught by Strong in order to increase pad to via contact area, relieve stress within the core material.
Regarding claim 6, Iwai discloses wherein the via (51) comprises rectangular cross- sections (Fig. 7) through the first layer (41) and the second layer (40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 1-3, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references/embodiments being used in the current rejection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2021/0125944 to Lambert et al., US Pub # 2015/0092357 to Yoshikawa et al., US Pub # 2016/00247754 to Fu et al., US Pub # 2024/00063128 to Lin, US Pub # 2023/0005831 to Lee et al., US Pub # 2021/0233826 to Park et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights