DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species 1a, corresponding to claims 1-14 and 26-28, in the reply filed on 1/22/26 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)).
Rejection over Yu et a., US 8,411,459
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Yu et a., US 8,411,459.
Regarding claim 1, Yu (figure 1J) teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate 10 having a front side (top) with at least one conductive trace (top of 20) overlaid with a first encapsulation layer 22, a back side (bottom) with at least one conductive pad (where 20 & 16 meet) overlaid with a second encapsulation layer 18, and one or more electrically conductive pathways 20 arranged at a first line and space interval and extending from the front side (top) to the back side (bottom);
a glass layer 32 comprising an upper surface (top), a lower surface (bottom), and a through-glass via (TGV) 40 that extends from the upper surface (top) to the lower surface (bottom);
a routing material (top of 40) on the upper surface (top) of the glass layer 40, the routing material (top of 40) patterned with a second line and space interval;
the lower surface (bottom) of the glass layer 32 attached to the front side (top) of the substrate 10; and
an electrically conductive path from the routing material (top) through the TGV 40 to the at least one conductive trace (top of 20) in the substrate 10.
With respect to 3, Yu (figure 1N) teaches the second line 40 and space interval are smaller than the first line 20 and space interval.
As claim 4, Yu (figure 1N) teaches the first encapsulation layer 22 is thinner than the second encapsulation layer 18.
In re claim 7, Yu (column 2, lines 55-56) teaches the glass layer comprises silicon and oxygen.
Concerning claim 8, Yu (column 2, lines 55-56) teaches the glass layer comprises silicon, oxygen, and aluminum, boron, or an alkaline-earth metal.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 9-14, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et a., US 8,411,459, as applied to claim 1 above.
Pertaining to claim 2, though the routing material on the upper surface of the glass layer is overlaid with a dielectric material, and the dielectric material plus the routing material is collectively referred to as a high density patterned (HDP) layer.
In claim 5, though Yu, which teaches fusion bonding (column 2, lines 60-62), fails to teach a bond film for attaching the lower surface of the glass layer to the front side of the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the fusion bonding in the invention of Yu with a bond film because it is a commonly known and used alternative type of bonding. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 6, though Yu fails to teach a plug comprising conductive material located in the second encapsulation layer, the plug having walls that are substantially straight and sloped, the plug substantially coaxial with the TGV and contacting the at least one conductive trace in the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the RDL 14/16 in the invention of Yu with a plug because they are conventionally known and used equivalents. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 9, though Yu, which teaches less than 800 nm (column 2, lines 58-59), fails to teach the glass layer has a thickness in a range of about 20 microns to about 1 millimeter, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the thickness through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 10, though Yu fails to teach the TGV has a diameter of about 2 microns to about 150 microns, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the diameter through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
In re claim 11, Yu (figure 1J) teaches a second one or more dielectric layers 18 comprising redistribution layers (RDL) 14/16 located on the back side (bottom) of the substrate 10, and though Yu fails to teach a first one or more dielectric layers comprising redistribution layers (RDL) located on the upper surface of the glass layer it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an RDL on the upper side of the glass in the invention of Yu because an RDL is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 12, Yu (figure 1J) teaches a second one or more dielectric layers 18 comprising redistribution layers (RDL) 14/16 located on the back side of the substrate 10 to complete a back side of the structure; a first arrangement of solder bumps 42 on the front side (top) of the structure; and a second arrangement of solder bumps (unlabeled bumps connecting to 46) on the back side (bottom) of the structure, and though Yu fails to teach a first one or more dielectric layers comprising redistribution layers (RDL) located on the upper surface of the glass layer to complete a front side of a structure it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an RDL on the upper side of the glass in the invention of Yu because an RDL is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 13, though Yu (figure 1J) fails to teach a system comprising: the apparatus of claim 12, including a first die and a second die attached to respective of the first arrangement of solder bumps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use 2 die on the first arrangement of bumps in the invention of Yu because it is a known equivalent arrangement. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
In claim 14, though Yu (figure 1J) fails to teach a printed circuit board (PCB) and the apparatus of claim 12 is attached, via the second arrangement of solder bumps, to the PCB, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use PCB on the second arrangement of bumps in the invention of Yu because it is a known equivalent arrangement. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 26, though Yu fails to teach an integrated circuit component attached to the printed circuit board, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an integrated circuit attached to the printed circuit board in the invention of Yu because it is a known equivalent arrangement. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 27, though Yu fails to teach the printed circuit board is enclosed by a housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a housing in the invention of Yu because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 28, though Yu fails to teach a thermal management solution thermally coupled to at least one of the first die or the second die by a thermal interface material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a thermal management solution in the invention of Yu because it is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Rejection over Hedrick et al., US 10,090,25
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102aq1 as being clearly anticipated by Hedrick et al., US 10,090,25.
In re claim 1, Hedrick (see marked up figure 1J below) teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate 130 having a front side 2 with at least one conductive trace 3 overlaid with a first encapsulation layer 4, a back side 1 with at least one conductive pad 5 overlaid with a second encapsulation layer 160, and one or more electrically conductive pathways 6 arranged at a first line and space interval and extending from the front side 2 to the back side 1;
a glass layer 115 comprising an upper surface 8, a lower surface 7, and a through-glass via (TGV) 9 that extends from the upper surface 8 to the lower surface 7;
a routing material 125 on the upper surface 8 of the glass layer, the routing material 125 patterned with a second line and space interval;
the lower surface 7 of the glass layer 115 attached to the front side 2 of the substrate 130; and
an electrically conductive path from the routing material 125 through the TGV 9 to the at least one conductive trace 3 in the substrate 130.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 2, Hedrick (see marked up figure 1J above) teaches the routing material 125 on the upper surface 8 of the glass layer 115 is overlaid with a dielectric material 135, and the dielectric material 135 plus the routing material 125 is collectively referred to as a high density patterned (HDP) layer.
Pertaining to claim 3, Hedrick (see marked up figure 1J above) teaches the second line and space interval (associated with 125) are smaller than the first line and space interval (associated with 6) .
In claim 6, Hedrick (see marked up figure 1J above) teaches a plug 165 comprising conductive material (column 4, line 64) located in the second encapsulation layer 160, the plug 165 having walls that are substantially straight and sloped, the plug 165 substantially coaxial with the TGV 9 and contacting the at least one conductive trace 3 in the substrate 130.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7-14, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrick et al., US 10,090,25. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, though Hedrick fails to teach the first encapsulation layer 4 is thinner than the second encapsulation layer 160, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the relative thickness through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 5, though Hedrick fails to teach a bond film for attaching the lower surface 7 of the glass layer 115 to the front side 2 of the substrate 130, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a bond film in the invention of Hedrick because a bond film is conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 7, though Hedrick fails to teach the glass layer comprises silicon and oxygen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use silicon and oxygen in the invention of Hedrick because silicon and oxygen are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 8, though Hedrick fails to teach the glass layer comprises silicon, oxygen, and aluminum, boron, or an alkaline-earth metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use silicon, oxygen, and aluminum, boron, or an alkaline-earth metal in the invention of Hedrick because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 9, though Hedrick fails to teach the glass layer has a thickness in a range of about 20 microns to about 1 millimeter, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the thickness through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Pertaining to claim 10, though Hedrick fails to teach the TGV has a diameter of about 2 microns to about 150 microns, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the diameter through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
In claim 11, though Hedrick fails to teach a first one or more dielectric layers comprising redistribution layers (RDL) located on the upper surface 8 of the glass layer 115; and a second one or more dielectric layers comprising redistribution layers (RDL) located on the back side 1 of the substrate 130, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the these RDL’s in the invention of Hedrick because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 12, though Hedrick fails to teach a first one or more dielectric layers comprising redistribution layers (RDL) located on the upper surface of the glass layer to complete a front side of a structure; a second one or more dielectric layers comprising redistribution layers (RDL) located on the back side of the substrate to complete a back side of the structure; a first arrangement of solder bumps on the front side of the structure; and a second arrangement of solder bumps on the back side of the structure, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the these RDL’s and solder bumps in the invention of Hedrick because they are conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 13, though Hedrick fails to teach a system comprising: the apparatus of claim 12, including a first die and a second die attached to respective of the first arrangement of solder bumps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a first die and a second die in the invention of Hedrick because it is a conventionally known and used system. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 14, though Hedrick fails to teach a printed circuit board (PCB) and the apparatus of claim 12 is attached, via the second arrangement of solder bumps, to the PCB, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a PCB in the invention of Hedrick because it is a conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In re claim 26, though Hedrick fails to teach an integrated circuit component attached to the printed circuit board, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an integrated circuit component in the invention of Hedrick because it is a conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 27, though Hedrick fails to teach the printed circuit board is enclosed by a housing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a housing in the invention of Hedrick because it is a conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 28, though Hedrick fails to teach a thermal management solution thermally coupled to at least one of the first die or the second die by a thermal interface material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a thermal management solution in the invention of Hedrick because it is a conventionally known and used in the art. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspect of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 3/13/26