DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention Group I and Species I (FIG. 1) in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-5, 14-21 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 reciting “E-glass, S-glass, LD- glass, L2-glass, NER-glass, or Q-glass” lacks adequate written description. It is unclear what the abbreviation is supposed to be indicative of. The specification does not describe these glass material in more details. There is no clear written description for the particular material or product intended to be covered by the list. As best understood, there is no known standard composition for the listed material.
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 6-7 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 reciting “the diffusion layer has a first concentration at a surface of the substrate and a second concentration a distance away from the surface of the substrate” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what are the “first concentration” and “second concentration” referring to. Concentration of what? Furthermore, the diffusion layer is claimed as separate from the substrate. It is unclear how would the diffusion layer has a concentration “at a surface of the substrate” or “a distance away from the surface of the substrate” (understood to mean below surface of the substrate).
Claim 13 reciting “E-glass, S-glass, LD- glass, L2-glass, NER-glass, or Q-glass” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the abbreviation is supposed to be indicative of. It is unclear if the list of glass material is trademark product or has any standard formulation. Applicant’s disclosure does not specify what these glass material is intended to encompass. The claim scope is uncertain since the named glass cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12-13, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. US 2018/0324958 A1 (Bai).
PNG
media_image1.png
190
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) a core for an electronic package, comprising:
a substrate 11 with a first (top) surface and a second (bottom) surface opposite from the first surface, wherein the substrate comprises glass (¶ 87);
a via opening 17 through the substrate 11; and
a diffusion layer 131 along the first (top) surface, the second (bottom) surface, and the via opening 17.
In re claim 6, as best understood, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) wherein the diffusion layer 131 has a first concentration at a surface of the substrate and a second concentration a distance away from the surface of the substrate, wherein the second concentration is less than the first concentration (layer 131 being formed by ion implantation, ¶ 91; the outer surface is naturally more concentrated due to diffusion; furthermore, an inner portion of substrate 11 is considered to be a part of the “diffusion layer” which is less concentrated than the implanted region 131).
In re claim 7, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) the ion implantation depth can be 10-400 nm (¶ 91). As such, at any distance greater than 400 nm the concentration is less than the implanted region. The distance can be in the range of greater than 400 nm and less than 5µm from the surface of the substrate 11.
In re claim 8, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 2d & 4e) wherein the diffusion layer 131 is omitted from select portions of the first surface and the second surface (131 is patterned).
In re claim 9, Bai discloses (e.g. FIG. 8) further comprising: a second via opening (17 shown in FIG. 8b) through the substrate 10, wherein the second via opening 17 is not lined by the diffusion layer (opening 17 in FIG. 8(b) is not lined with layer 131 that is lining each individual board 10).
In re claim 10, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) further comprising: a conductive via 132,15 in the via opening 17.
In re claim 12, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) wherein a thickness of the substrate 11 is between approximately 50µm and approximately 1,000µm (holes in substrate drilled to a depth of about 200 µm, ¶ 146).
In re claim 13, as best understood, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) wherein the substrate 11 comprises glass plate or glass fabric (¶ 87,145). No specific “E-glass, S-glass, LD- glass, L2-glass, NER-glass, or Q-glass” has been claimed that would distinguish over Bai’s glass substrate.
In re claim 22, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-12) a computing system, comprising:
a board (e.g. bottom board 10 in FIG. 8d);
a package substrate (upper board 10) coupled to the board, wherein the package substrate comprises:
a core 11 (FIG. 2), wherein the core comprises glass (¶ 87);
via openings 17 through the core 11 (¶ 88); and
a diffusion layer 131 that extends into surfaces 12 of the core 11 including a top surface, a bottom surface, and sidewall surfaces 19 of the via openings 17; and
a die coupled to the package substrate (no particular die claimed to distinguish over the board being applied to flexible chip technology, ¶ 116,135).
In re claim 25, Bai discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) wherein a thickness of the diffusion layer 131 is up to approximately 5µm (¶ 91).
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-13, 22-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sowwan et al. US 2023/0378047 A1 (Sowwan).
In re claim 1, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3 & 10-14) a core for an electronic package, comprising:
a substrate 302 with a first (top) surface and a second (bottom) surface opposite from the first surface, wherein the substrate comprises glass (¶ 35);
a via opening (303 or 1003) through the substrate 302; and
a diffusion layer (316,1018, or 1440; no specific “diffusion layer” claimed that would structurally distinguish over any of layers 316,1018,1440) along the first surface, the second surface, and the via opening 303,1003.
In re claim 2, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIG. 14A-14H) wherein the diffusion layer 316,1018,1140 comprises boron (boron nitride in 1018, ¶ 77) and oxygen (oxygen in epoxy of 1018, ¶ 77; or hydrolysable group in 316, ¶ 69; or oxides in 1440, ¶ 107).
In re claim 3, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIG. 14A-14H) wherein the diffusion layer 316,1018,1140 has a dielectric constant that is lower than a dielectric constant of a bulk of the substrate (e.g. semiconductor 1026 in bulk of the substrate has a higher dielectric constant than, e.g. epoxy+silica of layer 1018, ¶ 77).
In re claim 6, as best understood, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIGs. 14A) wherein the diffusion layer 316,1018,1140 has a first concentration at a surface of the substrate (concentration of material in 1140, ¶ 107; as best understood, the surface constitutes by outermost surface of 1140) and a second concentration a distance away from the surface of the substrate (e.g. concentration of material in 1140 at a distance at surface of 1018 that is under 1440 is zero), wherein the second concentration is less than the first concentration (e.g. concentration of material in 1140 at a distance that is under 1440 is zero).
In re claim 7, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIG. 14A) wherein the distance away from the surface of the substrate is approximately 5µm or less (e.g. distance at surface of 1018 under 1440 is equal to thickness of 1440, which is 10-300 nm, ¶ 107).
In re claim 8, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIG. 14G) wherein the diffusion layer 1440 is omitted from select portions of the first surface and the second surface (1440 etched from surfaces).
In re claim 9, Sowwan discloses (FIG. 3 & 14) a via opening 303 (FIG. 3) in glass substrate 302 with diffusion layer 316,1018, and further comprising: a second via opening 1003 (FIG. 14A) through the substrate 302, wherein the second via opening 1003 is not lined by the diffusion layer 316,1018.
In re claim 10, Sowwan discloses (FIG. 14G) further comprising: a conductive via 1444 in the via opening 303,1003.
In re claim 12, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3 & 14) wherein a thickness of the substrate 302 is between approximately 50µm and approximately 1,000µm (¶ 36).
In re claim 13, as best understood, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the substrate 302 comprises glass or borosilicate glass (¶ 35). No specific “E-glass, S-glass, LD- glass, L2-glass, NER-glass, or Q-glass” has been claimed that would distinguish over Sowwan’s glass substrate.
In re claim 22, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIGs. 3, 10-14 & 18) a computing system (no particular computing system claimed to distinguish over DRAM used in high performance computing taught by Sowwan, ¶ 133), comprising:
a board (a bottom 1602);
a package substrate (an upper 1602) coupled to the board, wherein the package substrate comprises:
a core 302, wherein the core comprises glass (¶ 35);
via openings (303 or 1003) through the core 302; and
a diffusion layer (316,1018, or 1440; no specific “diffusion layer” claimed that would structurally distinguish over any of layers 316,1018,1440) that extends into surfaces of the core including a top surface, a bottom surface, and sidewall surfaces of the via openings 303,1003; and
a die 1026 coupled to the package substrate 1602.
In re claim 23, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIG. 14A-14H) wherein the diffusion layer 316,1018,1140 comprises boron (boron nitride in 1018, ¶ 77) and oxygen (oxygen in epoxy of 1018, ¶ 77; or hydrolysable group in 316, ¶ 69; or oxides in 1440, ¶ 107).
In re claim 25, Sowwan discloses (e.g. FIG. 14A-14H) wherein a thickness of the diffusion layer 1140 is up to approximately 5µm (10-300 nm, ¶ 107).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao or Sowwan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maekewa et al. US 2019/0259696 A1 (Maekawa).
In re claim 11, Bai teaches (FIG. 2) the claimed invention including a via opening 17 in substrate 11. Sowwan also discloses via openings 303,1003 in substrate. Bai and Sowwan do not explicitly disclose the via opening has tapered sidewalls.
However, Maekewa discloses (FIGs. 58-59) a core substrate 12 having via openings 20, wherein the via openings have tapered sidewalls (¶ 293). Tapered sidewalls is known to improve layer coating and filling as is well-known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Bai’s via opening 17 or Sowwan’s via opening 303,1003 with tapered sidewalls to improve coating and filling characteristics of layers formed subsequently in the via opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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 KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896