DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 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Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026.
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 4, 6-7, and 9-14 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 4 reciting “a second glass layer coupled to an upper surface of the dielectric layer” renders the claim indefinite. As recited previously in claim 3, the dielectric layer is coupled to the lower surface of the underlying glass layer, implying an upper surface of the dielectric layer is coupled lower surface of the underlying glass layer. It is unclear how can “a second glass layer” be further coupled to the upper surface of the dielectric layer. Applicant’s disclosure does not describe how to couple multiple glass layer to the upper surface of the dielectric layer.
Claim 4 reciting “a first underlying glass layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how is this “first underlying glass layer” related to “underlying glass layer” previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 reciting “the underlying glass layer is one of a plurality of glass layers” and “a subsequent glass layer” lacks clarity due to improper antecedent basis. It is unclear how if “a subsequent glass layer” is another one of “a plurality of glass layer”.
Claim 7 reciting “each glass layer” and “at least one of a preceding glass layer” renders the claim indefinite for improper antecedent basis. It is unclear if these are intended to refer to a subset of the “plurality of glass layer”.
Claim 9 reciting two instances of “at least one electrically conductive interconnect and at least one electronic transmission hole extending from an upper surface of the glass core through the glass core layer to a lower surface of the glass core layer” render the claim indefinite. Firstly, it is unclear if the recitation to “at least one electrically conductive interconnect and at least one electronic transmission hole” in the separate instances are intended to refer to the same conductive interconnect and electronic transmission hole or are intended to refer to different ones. Furthermore, it is unclear which of the “glass core” is intended in each of the recitations since the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer” both include “a glass core”. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the glass core layer” refers to the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”. It is also unclear if “the glass core layer” is intended to refer to each of respective the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer” or is intended to refer to only one of the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”.
Claim 11 reciting “the glass core layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “the glass core layer” refers to the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”. It is also unclear if “the glass core layer” is intended to refer to each of respective the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer” or is intended to refer to only one of the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”.
Claim 12 reciting “the glass core layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “the glass core layer” refers to the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”. It is also unclear if “the glass core layer” is intended to refer to each of respective the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer” or is intended to refer to only one of the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”.
Claim 13 reciting “the at least one glass core layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “the at least one glass core layer” refers to the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”.
Claim 14 reciting “the at least one glass core layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “the at least one glass core layer” refers to the “at least one underlying glass core layer” and the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”. Furthermore, recitation to “a subsequent glass core layer” is indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to refer to the previously claimed “at least one subsequent glass core layer”. It is also unclear if “a subsequent glass core layer” is intended to refer to each of the “at least one subsequent glass core layer” or is intended to refer to only one of the “at least one subsequent glass core layer”. Furthermore, recitation to “the underlying layer glass core” renders the claim indefinite due to improper antecedent basis. It is unclear if “the underlying layer glass core” is the same as “at least one underlying glass core layer”. It is also unclear if “the underlying layer glass core” is intended to refer to each of the “at least one underlying glass core layer” or is intended to refer to only one of the “at least one underlying glass core layer”.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uzoh et al. US 2023/0207474 A1 (Uzoh).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) a semiconductor device comprising:
an underlying glass layer 25a (¶ 47) with an upper surface and a lower surface, the underlying glass layer including:
at least one electrically conductive interconnect 34 disposed on the upper surface of the glass layer 25a (FIGs. 6G-6L); and
at least one through hole 36 (FIG. 6E) within the underlying glass layer 25a extending from the upper surface to the lower surface.
In re claim 2, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIG. 6F-6H) further comprising an electrically conductive fill 34a in the at least one through hole 36.
In re claim 3, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) further comprising a dielectric layer 31a,25b coupled to at least one of the upper surface or the lower surface.
In re claim 4, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) further comprising a second glass layer 25c (¶ 47) coupled to an upper surface of the dielectric layer 31a,25b,31b;
wherein the dielectric layer 31a,25b,31b is sandwiched between “a first underlying glass layer” 25a,25b and the second glass layer 25c.
In re claim 5, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) further comprising a subsequent glass layer 25b,25c having at least one copper trace 34b,34c (¶ 37-38) and at least one through hole 36;
wherein the at least one through hole 36 of the subsequent glass layer 25b,25c is at least partially overlapping with the through hole 36 of the underlying glass layer 25a.
In re claim 6, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) wherein the underlying glass layer 25a is one of a plurality of glass layers 25a,25b,25c (¶ 47);
wherein a dielectric layer is one of a plurality of dielectric layers 31a,31b; and
wherein each dielectric layer 31a,31b of the plurality of dielectric layers is sandwiched between “a subsequent glass layer” 25b,25c and one of the plurality of glass layers 25a,25b,25c (31a is between 25a and 25b, 31b is between 25b and 25c).
In re claim 7, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) wherein “each glass layer” 25a,25b,25c is substantially aligned with at least one of “a preceding glass layer” 25a,25b or the subsequent glass layer 25b,25c; wherein the aligned glass layers 25a,25b,25c forms a glass core 16.
In re claim 8, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) wherein the at least one electrically conductive interconnects 34 is formed from copper, aluminum or gold (¶ 34-36).
In re claim 9, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 2C-2D & 6A-6V) an electronic system comprising:
a semiconductor chip 9c,9d coupled to a package substrate 16 (FIG. 2D);
the package substrate 16 including (FIGs. 6A-6V):
at least one underlying glass core layer 25c with a glass core (¶ 47), “at least one electrically conductive interconnect 34c (portion in 23a, ¶ 38) and at least one electronic transmission hole 36) extending from an upper surface of the glass core layer 25c through the glass core layer 25c to a lower surface of the glass core layer 25c”;
at least one subsequent glass core layer 25a with a glass core (¶ 47), “at least one electrically conductive interconnect 27 and at least one electronic transmission hole 36 extending from an upper surface of the glass core 25a through the glass core layer 25a to a lower surface of the glass core layer 25a”; and
at least one dielectric layer 25b sandwiched between the at least one underlying glass core layer 25c and the at least one subsequent glass core layer 25a.
In re claim 10, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) further including: copper plating within the at least one electronic transmission hole 36 in at least one of the underlying glass core layer 25c or the at least one subsequent glass core layer 25a (¶ 35-37).
In re claim 11, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V, viewed in orientation of FIG. 6V) wherein the at least one dielectric layer 25b is coupled to the upper surface of “the glass core layer” 25c or the lower surface of “the glass core layer” 25a with silicon nitride 31a,31b (¶ 34).
In re claim 12, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) wherein the at least one dielectric layer 25b is coupled to the upper surface of “the glass core layer” 25a or the lower surface of “the glass core layer” 25c with pressing and curing. No specific “pressing” and “curing” claimed. The layering itself teaches “pressing” by weight of the layers. Uzoh further teaches curing in oven (¶ 33,36). Furthermore, the recitation to “pressing and curing” pertains to product by process limitation. In regard to the product by process language, since a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao and Sato et al., 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (CCPA 1976) (footnote 3). “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also In re Luck and Gainer, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC 1983). It is the final product per se which must be determined for patentability in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not, is not patentable. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 13, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) wherein the package substrate 16 includes a plurality of alternating layers of “the at least one glass core layer” 25a,25c and the at least one dielectric layer 25b.
In re claim 14, as best understood, Uzoh discloses (e.g. FIGs. 6A-6V) wherein each of “the at least one glass core layer” 25a,25c is substantially aligned with “at least one of a subsequent glass core layer” 25a or “the underlying layer glass core” 25c.
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