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
In response to a Restriction Requirement mailed on 10/31/2025, the Applicant elected Group I encompassing device claims 1-16 without traverse on 11/12/2025. Non-elected Group II encompassing method claims 17-22 are hereby withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1-22. Elected Group I encompassing claims 1-16 are examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Two information disclosure statements submitted on 09/30/2022 ("09-30-22 IDS") and 11/12/2025 (“11-12-25 IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 09-30-22 IDS and 11-12-25 IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16 are objected to because in the independent claim 14, please consider deleting “on.” Appropriate correction is required.
A. Prior-art rejections based on Hu
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2015/0334823 A1 to Hu ("Hu").
Fig. 1E of Hu has been annotated to support the rejection below:
[AltContent: textbox (S1)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (R2)][AltContent: textbox (S3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SW1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
304
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Hu teaches an integrated circuit (IC) device (Fig. 1F; see also Fig. 1E for further details) comprising:
a substrate 110 (para [0016] - “The glass substrate 110 includes electrical connections 115 such as through-glass via interconnects through the glass substrate, connecting contact pads 132 and conductive traces formed on one or more surfaces of the glass substrate.”) comprising a glass core, the glass core comprising:
a first surface S1;
a second surface S2 opposite the first surface S1;
a first sidewall SW1 between the first surface S1 and the second surface S2;
a corner region 122 (para [0021] - “Tapered edges 122”) where the first sidewall SW1 meets the first surface S1; and
a first build-up layer 130 (para [0018] - “sequential layer build-up (SBU) layers 130”) on at least the first surface S1.
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches the corner region 122 that comprises a recess 122 and a dielectric material 131 (para [0021] - “dielectric layer 131”) within the recess 122.
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches the recess 122 that comprises a third surface S3 that is other than perpendicular to either the first surface S1 or the first sidewall SW1.
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches the third surface S3 that is curved.
Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches the first sidewall SW1 that further comprises an artifact (facet) of a mechanical sawing process (A limitation of “an artifact of a mechanic sawing process” does not structurally distinguish the claimed device over the device taught by Hu, because it is directed to a process of making the device. Device of Hu is reasonably capable of having an artifact from “creating a curt or break along the kerf lines to form individual substrate component for packaging IC chips.” (para [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Hu teaches the first build-up layer that comprises a metallization layer 132 and a dielectric material layer 131.
Regarding claim 13, Hu teaches a second build-up layer 130 on the second surface S2, the second build-up layer 130 comprising a metallization layer 131 and a dielectric material layer 131 (see Fig. 1E).
Regarding independent claim 14, Hu teaches an integrated circuit (IC) device (Fig. 1F; see also Fig. 1E for further details) comprising:
a substrate 110 (para [0016] - “The glass substrate 110 includes electrical connections 115 such as through-glass via interconnects through the glass substrate, connecting contact pads 132 and conductive traces formed on one or more surfaces of the glass substrate.”) comprising a glass core, the glass core comprising:
a first surface S1;
a second surface S2 opposite the first surface S1;
a first sidewall SW1 between the first surface S1 and the second surface S2;
a corner region 122 (para [0021] - “Tapered edges 122”) where the first sidewall SW1 meets the first surface S1; and
a first build-up layer 130 (para [0018] - “sequential layer build-up (SBU) layers 130”) on at least the first surface S1;
an IC die 170 (para [0022] - “IC chips 170”) on coupled with the first build-up layer 130.
Regarding claim 15, Hu teaches the corner region 122 that comprises recess 122 having a third surface S3 that is other than perpendicular to either the first surface S1 or the first sidewall SW1.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and further in view of Patent No. US 5,199,163 to Ehrenberg et al. (“Ehrenberg”).
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches the glass core 110 that comprises a second region R2; and the corner region 122 comprises a first compressive region (of the glass 110), the second region R2 comprises a second compressive stress (of the dielectric layer 131).
Hu does not disclose the material of the dielectric layer of the build-up layer, which forms the corner region.
Ehrenberg teaches that the dielectric layer of a build-up layer can be made, among other things, quartz, silicon nitride or polyimides (col. 1, ln 15-27). Polyimides are polymers so they would inherently possess a compressive stress that is lower than the compressive stress of glass.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hu by using polyimides as the dielectric layer of the build-up layer as taught by Ehrenberg, because “all the claimed elements were know in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).” (quoting Section 2143.02 of the MPEP).
As a result of the modification, the combination of Hu and Ehrenberg teaches
the first compressive stress (glass) is greater than the second compressive stress (polyimide).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hu and Ehrenberg teaches the corner region 122 that comprises a first refractive index (glass), the second region R2 that comprises a second refractive index (polyimide), and the first refractive index (of glass) is different from the second refractive index (of polyimide).
Regarding claim 8, a limitation of “wherein the corner region comprises a first photoelasticity parameter value, the second region comprises a second photoelasticity parameter value, and the first photoelasticity parameter value is different from the second photoelasticity parameter value” is directed to an operational characteristic or property of the corner region so it may not structurally distinguish the claimed device over the device taught by Hu. The device taught by the combination of Hu and Ehrenberg is reasonably capable of having the operational characteristic or property of the corner region as the corner region is made of glass and the second region is made of a different material than glass (e.g., polyimide.).
Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches the corner region 122 that spans a distance from the first sidewall SW1 in a direction parallel to the first surface S1.
Hu does not specify the distance that is between about 25 and 75 microns.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed device and the device taught by Hu is a relative dimension of the distance that is between about 25 and 75 microns, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device taught by Hu. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the claimed device such that distance is between about 25 and 75 microns with a reasonable expectation of providing a device that is miniaturized as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making device smaller as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches the glass core 110 that comprises a thickness, the corner region 122 that spans a distance from the first surface S1 in a direction parallel to the first sidewall SW1, the distance that is between about 15 and 25 percent of the thickness of the glass core 110 (Fig. 1E shows the distance that the tapered edge 122 in the direction parallel to the first sidewall SW1 that overlaps with the range of about 15 to 25 percent of the thickness of the glass core 110).
Hu does not disclose the thickness of between 200 and 1600 microns.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Court held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Since the only difference between the claimed device and the device taught by Hu is a relative dimension of the thickness of between 200 and 1600 microns, the Court would be more likely than not hold that the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device taught by Hu. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the claimed device such that the thickness of between 200 and 1600 microns with a reasonable expectation of providing a device that is miniaturized as the one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art is incentivized to make adjustments to size to fit an intended purpose of making device smaller as market forces demand that the device scale down with Moore's Law.
B. Prior-art rejections based on Waidhas
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1022
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)(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, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2023/0282546 A1 to Waidhas ("Waidhas").
Fig. 1A of Waidhas has been annotated to support the rejection below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SW3)][AltContent: textbox (S1)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SW1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CR)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
223
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (SW4)]
Regarding independent claim 1, Waidhas teaches an integrated circuit (IC) device (Fig. 1F; see also Fig. 1E for further details) comprising:
a substrate 108 (para [0081] - “In various embodiments, core 108 comprises glass…”) comprising a glass core, the glass core comprising:
a first surface S1;
a second surface S2 opposite the first surface S1;
a first sidewall SW1 between the first surface S1 and the second surface S2;
a corner region CR where the first sidewall SW1 meets the first surface S1; and
a first build-up layer 110 (para [0081] - “Redistribution layers 110”) on at least the first surface S1.
Regarding claim 2, Waidhas teaches the corner region CR that comprises a recess 120 (para [0082] - “In various embodiments, core 108 comprises a hollow channel 120 therein configured to permit flow of a coolant. In some embodiments, the coolant may be a liquid; in other embodiments, the coolant may be a gas; in yet other embodiments, the coolant may be in both liquid state and gaseous state, depending on its temperature (e.g., gaseous state at higher temperatures and liquid state at lower temperature) within channel 120.”) and a dielectric material (liquid and/or gas) within the recess 120.
Regarding claim 5, Waidhas teaches the recess 120 that comprises a third sidewall SW3 approximately parallel with the first sidewall SW1, a fourth sidewall SW4 approximately parallel with the first surface S1.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 14, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 14 or the base claim 14 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Pub. No. US 2020/0364600 A1 to Elsherbini et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
08 January 2026
1 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
2 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status