CTFR 17/988,051 CTFR 74556 DETAILED ACTION Drawings The replacement drawing filed 1/22/26 have been approved and entered into the record. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments filed 7/20/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below. 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, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being clearly anticipated by Ohno et al., US 7,738,258 . Regarding 1. Ohno (figure 1) teaches an apparatus, comprising: a package substrate 20/30 having a front side (top of upper 30) with at least one conductive trace 32/33/35/36 overlaid with a first encapsulation layer (upper 34), a back side (bottom of lower 30) with at least one conductive pad 22 overlaid with a second encapsulation layer (lower 34), and one or more electrically conductive pathways 24 arranged at a first line and space interval (the series of through hole conductors 24) and extending from the front side (top of upper 30) to the back side (bottom of lower 30); an interposer 60 attached to the front side (top of upper 30) of the package substrate 20/30, the interposer 60 comprising: a glass (column 3, lines 1-5) layer 60 comprising an upper surface (top of 60), a lower surface (bottom of 60), and a through-glass via (TGV) 61 that extends from the upper surface (top of 60) to the lower surface (bottom of 60); and a routing material 613 on the upper surface (top of 60) of the glass layer 60, the routing material 613 patterned with a second line and space interval (the series of 613 across the top of 60); and wherein the lower surface (bottom of 60) of the glass layer 60 is attached to the front side (top of upper 30) of the package substrate 20/30; wherein a path comprising conductive material extends from the routing material 613 through the TGV 61 to the at least one conductive trace 32/33/35/36 in the package substrate 20/30. As to claim 3, Ohno (figure 1) teaches the second line and space interval (the series of 613 across the top of 60) is smaller than the first line and space interval (the series of through hole conductors 24). In claim 7, Ohno (column 3, lines 1-5) teaches the glass layer comprises silicon and oxygen because glass inherently comprises at least silicon and oxygen . 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 4-6, 8-14, 26, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno et al., US 7,738,258, as applied to claim 1 above . With respect to claim 2, though Ohno (figure 1) fails to teach the routing material 613 on the upper surface of the glass layer 60 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the a dielectric and a HDP in the invention of Ohno 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). In re claim 4, though Ohno fails to teach the first encapsulation layer (upper 34) is thinner than the second encapsulation layer (lower 34), 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). Concerning claim 5, though Ohno fails to teach a bond film for attaching the lower surface of the glass layer 60 to the front side of the package substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use bonding film in the invention of Ohno 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). Pertaining to claim 6, though Ohno fails to specifically teach a plug comprising conductive material located in the first 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 package substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a plug in the invention of Ohno because it is a conventionally known and used equivalent to the conductor of Ohno. 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 8, though Ohno 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 this glass in the invention of Ohno because it is a conventionally known and used type of glass. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07). With respect to claim 9, though Ohno 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 Ohno 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, Ohno (figure 1) teaches a second one or more dielectric layers 45 comprising redistribution layers (RDL) 41 located on the back side (bottom of lower 30) of the package substrate 20/30; and though Ohno (figure 1) fails to teach a first one or more dielectric layers comprising redistribution layers (RDL) located on the upper surface (top of 60) of the glass layer 60; and a second one or more dielectric layers 45 comprising redistribution layers (RDL) 41 located on the back side (bottom of lower 30) of the package substrate 20/30, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a dielectric and RDL in the invention of Ohno 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 12, Ohno teaches a second one or more dielectric layers 45 comprising redistribution layers (RDL) 41 located on the back side (bottom of lower 30) of the package substrate 20/30 to complete a back side of the structure; a first arrangement of solder bumps 71 on the front side of the structure; and a second arrangement of solder bumps (they would be attached to exposed pads on the bottom of lower 30) on the back side of the structure; and though Ohno 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 a dielectric and RDL in the invention of Ohno 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). Pertaining to claim 13, though Ohno, which only teaches 1 die 710, fails to teaches 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 71, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use two die in the invention of Ohno because the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In claim 14, though Ohno fails to teach a printed circuit board (PCB) and the apparatus of claim 12 is attached, via the second arrangement of solder bumps (attached to exposed pads on bottom of lower 30), 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 Ohno 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). Regarding claim 26, though Ohno 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 Ohno 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). With respect to claim 29, though Ohno fails to teach the routing material comprises an annular landing structure surrounding the TGV 61 and connected to the routing material, and wherein the path extends through the annular landing structure and the TGV to the at least one conductive trace in the package substrate, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an annular landing structure in the invention of Ohno 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 30, though Ohno fails to teach at least a portion of the package substrate includes an epoxy core, wherein the glass layer is over the epoxy core, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use tan epoxy core in the invention of Ohno because it is a conventionally known and used equivalent to glass. 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) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teach various aspects of the invention . 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 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 8/12/26 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 2 Art Unit: 2891 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 3 Art Unit: 2891 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 4 Art Unit: 2891 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 5 Art Unit: 2891 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 6 Art Unit: 2891 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 7 Art Unit: 2891 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 8 Art Unit: 2891 Application/Control Number: 17/988,051 Page 9 Art Unit: 2891
Prosecution Insights