CTFR 17/983,230 CTFR 81629 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s contend that the prior art as previously applied does not teach wherein the first TGV is spaced apart from an edge of the first sub-core by a first spacing and the second TGV is spaced apart from an edge of the second sub-core by a second spacing different from the first spacing. This is taught by Scannel in paragraph [0064] which describes an offset of the stacked via 50 portions in each of the substrate layers 100/200, ie that via 50 portions are not perfectly aligned with each other thus creating a differential in their spacing from their respective layer edges, and this is described as a byproduct of the manufacturing (production) process as it relates to production speed (perfection not achieved so some offset of via location is to be expected) see [0062]-[0064] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 11-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Scannel US 2015/0156862 . Pertaining to claim 1, Scannel teaches a package substrate; comprising a core 10 , wherein the core comprises: a first sub-core 100 , wherein the first sub-core comprises a glass and a first through glass via (TGV) 50 [0052] the first TGV spaced apart from an edge of the first sub-core by a first spacing [0062-0064] ; and a second sub-core 200 , wherein the second sub-core comprises the glass and a second TGV 50 , the second TGV spaced apart from an edge of the second sub-core by a second spacing different than the first spacing [0062-0064], wherein the first TGV directly contacts the second TGV [0030] describes “direct bonding” . See arguments above. Pertaining to claim 2, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein the first sub-core is hybrid bonded to the second sub-core. Applicant describes “hybrid bonding” as bonding a surface with two distinct elements (glass and copper for example). This process is described [0059] – [0066] and shown in Figure 3 Pertaining to claim 3, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 2, wherein there is a seam visible at the interface between the first TGV and the second TGV. See Figure 7 where elements 100 and 200 are bounded by an illustrated line Pertaining to claim 5, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein a centerline of the first TGV is offset from a centerline of the second TGV. Offset can be equal to 0 (zero) also see [0064] Pertaining to claim 6, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 5, wherein the offset is up to two microns. “up to two microns” can include an offset of 0 (zero) also see [0064] Pertaining to claim 11, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 1, wherein an aspect ratio (height:width) of the first TGV is up to 5:1, and wherein an aspect ratio of the second TGV is up to 5:1 Note that the height:width ratio of the TGV element 50 illustrated in Figure 7 meets the “up to” 5:1 ratio . Pertaining to claim 12, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the first sub-core 100 is up to 500 microns [0056] , and wherein a thickness of the second sub-core 200 is up to 500 microns [0059] . Pertaining to claim 13, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 1, further comprising dielectric buildup layers over 75 [0096] (redistribution layers = dielectric + electrical pathways) and under 5 [0047] (ceramic is dielectric for example) the core 10 . Pertaining to claim 14, Scannel teaches a package substrate, comprising: first buildup layers 5 ; a core 10 over the first buildup layers, wherein the core comprises a glass; a through glass via (TGV) 50 through the core, wherein the TGV has an aspect ratio (height:width) of approximately 5:1 or greater See Figure 7 marked up below. It is clear that the height:width ratio exceeds 5:1 , and wherein the TGV has at least one visible seam See Figure 7 , the TGV having a first portion spaced apart from an edge of a first sub-core by a first spacing, and the TGV having a second portion spaced apart from an edge of a second sub-core by a second spacing different than the first spacing [0062-0064] and second buildup layers 75 over the core 10 . PNG media_image1.png 384 636 media_image1.png Greyscale Pertaining to claim 15, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 14, wherein the visible seam includes a first grain direction on a first side and a second grain direction on a second side, wherein the first grain direction is different than the second grain direction. This is describing why a seam is visible, because where the two sides meet there is a break in the material (ie grain) which itself is what causes a seem to be present. If there was no seem, the grains would match. Because Scannel teaches a seam, Scannel teaches mismatched grains (ie the two sides grains are in a different direction). Pertaining to claim 19, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 14, wherein the TGV has a first portion with a first centerline and a second portion with a second centerline, and wherein the first centerline is offset from the second centerline. Offset can be 0 (zero) also see [0064] Pertaining to claim 20, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 19, wherein the offset is up to two microns. Offset can be 0 (zero) also see [0064] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scannel above . Pertaining to claim 17, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 14, including a height:width ratio illustrated in Figure 7, but it is not clear that the aspect ratio is 10:1 or greater. However, the height of the TVG is related to the thickness of the core layer itself, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a core layer at a desired thickness as a matter of design choice, and stemming from that, a height:width ratio of the TGV. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the height:width ratio of the TGV (ie height of the core) through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the height is a result-effective variable (goes to the size and function of the device) and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scannel as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chen et al US 2022/0310554 . Pertaining to claim 18, Scannel teaches a package substrate of claim 14, but does not teach wherein alignment during the bonding process further comprises a fiducial mark on the core. Chen teaches that alignment marks (ie fiducial mark) 50-AM [0027] can be used to align layers in a direct bonding process [0029] Note that the use of an alignment mark is all that is being relied upon from Chen, and the use of alignment marks is well known in the art, and Chen specifically teaches there use in a direct bonding process which is what Scannel taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method of Scannel by incorporating alignment (fiducial) marks. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Scannel in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of ensuring proper alignment of the via layer elements . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scannel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al US 2011/0147059 . Pertaining to claim 7, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 1, but is silent wherein sidewalls of the first TGV are tapered to form a first end that is wider than a second end, and wherein sidewalls of the second TGV are tapered to form a third end that is wider than a fourth end. Ma teaches a glass substrate core 157a/b/c with TGV’s that have a tapered shape, the tapered shape being in the first core and the second core See Figure 1F marked up below. It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Scannel and Ma to enable the TGV step of Scannel to be performed according to the teachings of Ma because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable methods/structures/shapes of performing the disclosed TGV formation step of Scannel and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07. PNG media_image2.png 384 566 media_image2.png Greyscale Pertaining to claim 8, Scannel in view of Ma teaches the package substrate of claim 7, wherein the first TGV and the second TGV are oriented so that the second end contacts the fourth end. (narrow ends contact) see Ma figure 10G (this is an alternative embodiment) Pertaining to claim 9, this is simply reversing what is claimed in claim 8 to achieve the wider ends of the vias being in contact with each other. It’s not inventive to simply rearrange the orientation of the vias in this manner. The shape is taught by Ma, reversing it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device .); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ( the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scannel as applied to claim s 1 and 19 above and further in view of Furusawa et al US 2013/0215586 Pertaining to claims 10 and 22, Scannel teaches the package substrate of claim 19, but does not teach wherein the first portion has an hourglass shaped cross-section, and wherein the second portion has an hourglass shaped cross-section. Furusawa teaches that an hourglass shaped via in a core substrate layer is conventional in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, it would have been an obvious shape to try to one of ordinary skill. See Furusawa Figure 1 element 36 . Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose a shape known in the art for the individual vias, in this example, an hourglass shape, for its selection is nothing more than design choice and/or optimization of elements. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) As noted above, Matzen discloses that the flexible portion of his container is drawn into the rigid top portion, filling the space thereof. Appellants have presented no argument which convinces us that the particular configuration of their container is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces in the collapsed container of Matzen. See Grahm v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. l, 148 USPQ 459 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scannel and further in view of Wu et al US 2021/0375785 . Pertaining to claim 23, Scannel teaches an electronic system, comprising: a package substrate, wherein the package substrate comprises: first buildup layers 5 ; a core 10 over the first buildup layers 5 , wherein the core comprises glass; a through glass via (TGV) through the core, wherein the TGV comprises a first portion with a first centerline and a second portion with a second centerline, wherein the first centerline is offset from the second centerline, and the TGV having the first portion spaced apart from an edge of a first sub-core by a first spacing, and the TGV having the second portion spaced apart from an edge of a second sub-core by a second spacing different than the first spacing; See [0062-0064] and arguments above ; and second buildup layers 75 over the core 10 ; and a die 15 coupled to the package substrate. Scannel is silent regarding a board, the package substrate being coupled to the board. Scannel does teach that the package is intended to be coupled to an additional feature by including solder bumps on the lowest surface on element 5 see Figure 7 . Wu teaches a package 600 with a core substrate 200 with through vias, the package being connected to a PCB (circuit board) 650 . See Figure 28 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the package taught by Scannel onto a circuit board, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of using the functions of the package by interfacing with a circuit board that provides access to the functions of the package to an end user. See also [0081] of Wu PNG media_image3.png 700 820 media_image3.png Greyscale Pertaining to claim 24, Scannel in view of Wu teaches the electronic system of claim 23, wherein the TGV has an aspect ratio (height:width) of approximately 5:1 or greater. See Figure 7 of Scannel marked up below PNG media_image1.png 384 636 media_image1.png Greyscale 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scannel and Wu as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Chen et al US 2022/0310554 . Pertaining to claim 18, Scannel/Wu teaches a package substrate of claim 23, but does not teach a fiducial mark on the core. Chen teaches that alignment marks (ie fiducial mark) 50-AM [0027] can be used to align layers in a direct bonding process [0029] Note that the use of an alignment mark is all that is being relied upon from Chen, and the use of alignment marks is well known in the art, and Chen specifically teaches there use in a direct bonding process which is what Scannel taught. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method of Scannel/Wu by incorporating alignment (fiducial) marks. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Scannel/Wu in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of ensuring proper alignment of the via layer elements. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30. 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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. /NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 2 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 3 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 4 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 5 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 6 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 7 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 8 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 9 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 17/983,230 Page 10 Art Unit: 2817
Prosecution Insights