Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/975,662

ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY WITH POWER MODULE INTERPOSER AND METHODS OF FORMING THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 28, 2022
Examiner
LOPEZ, JORGE ANDRES
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
14 granted / 14 resolved
+32.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
42
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
70.3%
+30.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 14 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election without traverse of “Group I (Claims 1-13 and 18-20)” in the reply filed on November 25, 2025, is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (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 1-4,8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0204067 A1; Dabral et al.; 06/2020; (“067”). Regarding Claim 1. 067 teaches in Figs. 3,6 and 11B about an electronic assembly, comprising: a package substrate (Fig. 3, item 200) with a top substrate surface (Fig. 3, top surface of item 200); an interposer (Fig. 11B, item 610) coupled to the package substrate at the top substrate surface (Fig. 11B, item 610 coupled to top of item 200), the interposer comprising a plurality of through interposer vias (Fig. 6, plurality of interposer via items 332) and an opening extending through the interposer (Fig. 6, opening for item 130); and a power module (Fig. 6, item 130) arranged in the opening in the interposer and coupled to the package substrate at the top substrate surface (Fig. 6, item 130 is arranged in the opening of item 610 and coupled to the top of item 200), wherein the power module comprises a plurality of interconnects (Fig. 3, TSV items 132 within item 130) including a first interconnect coupled to a first voltage (Fig. 3, from left-to-right second item 132 coupled to ground conductor item 104) and a second interconnect coupled to a second voltage (Fig. 3, from left-to-right first item 132 coupled to power supply conductor item 106). Regarding Claim 2. 067 teaches in Fig. 4 about an electronic assembly, wherein the first interconnect and/or the second interconnect comprises a plurality of conductive planes extending horizontally between a top surface and a bottom surface of the power module (“Fig. 4 is a schematic cross-sectional side view illustration of … IPD 130”, [0043], Ln. 1-2, wherein interconnect item 132 comprises a plurality of conductive planes extending horizontally between a top surface and a bottom surface of the power module). Regarding Claim 3. 067 teaches in Figs. 3 and 4 about an electronic assembly, wherein the plurality of conductive planes of the first interconnect is isolated from the plurality of conductive planes of the second interconnect by a dielectric material (interconnect items 132 in Fig. 3 and their respective conductive planes shown in Fig. 4 are isolated by at least “resistive substrate 425”, [0043], Ln. 8). Regarding Claim 4. 067 teaches in Figs. 3 and 4 about an electronic assembly, wherein the dielectric material is epoxy mold compound, Bismaleimide-Triazine epoxy resin or silicone (item “130 includes a resistive substrate 425 (e.g. silicon substrate, or silicon-on-insulator (SOI))”, [0043], Ln. 8-9). Regarding Claim 8. 067 teaches in Fig. 3 about an electronic assembly, wherein the first voltage comprises a reference voltage (item 104 is a ground conductor), and wherein the second voltage comprises a power supply voltage (item 106 is a power supply conductor). Regarding Claim 18. 067 teaches in Figs. 3,6 and 11B about a method, comprising: providing an interposer (Fig. 11B, item 610) comprising a plurality of through interposer vias (Fig. 6, plurality of interposer via items 332); forming an opening through the interposer (Fig. 6, opening for item 130); arranging a power module in the opening in the interposer (Fig. 6, item 130 is arranged in the opening of item 610), wherein the power module comprises a plurality of interconnects (Fig. 3, TSV items 132 within item 130) including a first interconnect coupled to a first voltage (Fig. 3, from left-to-right second item 132 coupled to ground conductor item 104) and a second interconnect coupled to a second voltage (Fig. 3, from left-to-right first item 132 coupled to power supply conductor item 106); and attaching the interposer to a package substrate (Fig. 11B, item 610 is attached to the top surface of item 200). Regarding Claim 19. Same as rejection for claim 2. 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. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2020/0204067 A1; Dabral et al.; 06/2020; (“067”). Regarding Claim 5. 067 teaches in Fig. 4 about an electronic assembly, wherein the plurality of conductive planes comprises a conductive plane with a thickness not specified. 067 does not teach about an electronic assembly, wherein the plurality of conductive planes comprises a conductive plane with a thickness of 30 μm or greater. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different thickness ranges for the conductive planes to meet design expectations, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim 6. 067 teaches in Fig. 6 about an electronic assembly, wherein the power module extends between a top surface of a bottom redistribution layer (item 340) and bottom surface of a top redistribution layer (item 320) of the interposer (item 610). 067 does not teach about an electronic assembly, wherein the power module extends between a top surface and bottom surface of the interposer. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to extend the height of a power module in a vertical direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04. Regarding Claim 7. 067 teaches in Fig. 6 about an electronic assembly, wherein the power module extends between a top surface of a bottom redistribution layer (item 340) and bottom surface of a top redistribution layer (item 320) of the interposer (item 610). 067 does not teach about an electronic assembly, wherein the power module extends beyond a top surface of the interposer. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to extend the height of a power module in a vertical direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE ANDRES LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30am to 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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. /FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /JORGE ANDRES LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2022
Application Filed
May 23, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604762
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO REDUCE THICKNESS OF ON-PACKAGE MEMORY ARCHITECTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598997
INDUCTOR WITH INTEGRATED MAGNETICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 2 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 14 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month