DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments filed 9/24/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 25, and its dependent claims 26-29, have been allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the claim amendment is neither taught nor suggested in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Rejection over Pietambaram et al., US 2022/189880
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Pietambaram et al., US 2022/189880.
The applied reference has a common assignee and one common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Pietambaram (see abbreviated & marked up figure 1 below) teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a glass layer 114 having an upper surface and a lower surface, the glass layer comprising a plurality of through-glass vias (TGVs) 118;
a first dielectric layer 112-1 comprising a first redistribution layer (RDL) 116 located adjacent to the upper surface;
a second dielectric layer 112-2 comprising a second RDL 116 located adjacent to the lower surface;
at least one electrically communicative path 1 from the first dielectric layer 112-1 through a TGV 118 to the second dielectric layer 112-2;
a conductive layer 2 located on a portion of the first dielectric layer 112-1; and
a third RDL 106 located on the conductive layer 2;
wherein the third RDL located on the conductive layer is characterized by rounded walls (paragraph 0015 states rounded corners can replace any the rectilinear structures and rounded corners result in, at least partially, rounded walls).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, wherein (paragraph 0021 at top of 2nd column teaches 350-550 microns) the glass layer 114 has a thickness in a range of about 20 microns to about 2 millimeter.
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, 4-5, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram et al., US 2022/189880, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, US 9,406,658.
As to claim 2, Pietambaram, which teaches depositing the dielectric around the embedded component (figures 7-9), fails to teach a cavity wall located external to a periphery of the conductive layer, and a third dielectric layer located in the cavity wall.
Lee teaches both depositing the dielectric around the embedded component (figures 6E-G), as taught in Pietambaram, and a cavity wall located external to a periphery of the conductive layer, and a third dielectric layer located in the cavity wall (figure 7 & column 9, lines 1-22), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cavity of Lee in place of the surrounded component in the invention of Pietambaram because Lee teaches both are known equivalent ways to achieve the same result. 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).
Concerning claim 4, though Pietambaram fails to teach the conductive layer, the first RDL, the second RDL, and the third RDL comprise copper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use copper for these materials in the invention of Pietambaram because copper is a conventionally known and used material for these layers. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Pertaining to claim 5, though Pietambaram 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 t silicon and oxygen containing glass in the invention of Pietambaram because they are conventionally known and used glass materials. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 7, Lee (figure 7) teaches an embedded component 202 located on the conductive layer 204 and attached to the third RDL 250/251/253/254.
Regarding claim 8, though Lee fails to teach the embedded component is attached to the third RDL via solder, and further comprising underfill between the embedded component and a cavity floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the directly connected embedded component in the invention of Lee with a solder connection 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 Pietambaram and Lee fail to teach the embedded component is a photonic integrated circuit (PIC), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a PIC in the invention of Pietambaram because a PIC is a conventionally known and used embedded component. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
As to claim 11, though Pietambaram fails to teach the third RDL located on the conductive layer is characterized by rounded walls, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use rounded sidewalls in the invention of Pietambaram because rounded sidewalls 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 13, though Pietambaram and Lee fail to teach an epoxy layer between the glass layer and the second dielectric layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an epoxy layer in the invention of Pietambaram because an epoxy layer is conventionally known and used to improve adhesion. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Concerning claim 14, though Pietambaram and Lee fail to teach an epoxy layer adjacent to the glass layer and located on the second dielectric layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an epoxy layer in the invention of Pietambaram because an epoxy layer is conventionally known and used to improve adhesion. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Rejection over Terui et al., US 2016/0020164
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terui et al., US 2016/0020164, in view of Pietambaram et al., US 2022/189880.
In claim 1, Terui (see marked up figure 1 below) teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a glass (paragraph 0045) layer 11 having an upper surface and a lower surface, the glass layer comprising a plurality of through-glass vias (TGVs) 2;
a first dielectric layer (upper 15) comprising a first redistribution layer (RDL) (upper 16) located adjacent to the upper surface;
a second dielectric layer (lower 15) comprising a second RDL (lower 16) located adjacent to the lower surface;
at least one electrically communicative path 1 from the first dielectric layer (upper 15) through a TGV 2 to the second dielectric layer lower 15);
a conductive layer 31A located on a portion of the first dielectric layer (upper 15); and
a third RDL 21/29F/23A/23B/25A located on the conductive layer 31A.
PNG
media_image2.png
574
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Terui fails to teach the third RDL located on the conductive layer is characterized by rounded walls.
Pietambaram (paragraph 0015) states rounded corners can replace any the rectilinear structures, and rounded corners result in, at least partially, rounded walls).=, therefore Pietambaram teaches the third RDL located on the conductive layer is characterized by rounded walls.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the rounded walls of Terui in the invention of Pietambaram because rounded walls are taught to be conventionally known and used equivalent. 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 4, Terui teaches wherein the conductive layer 31A (paragraph 0032), the first RDL (upper 16), the second RDL (lower 16), and the third RDL 21/29F/23A/23B/25A comprise copper (paragraph 0029).
With respect to claim 6, Terui (paragraph 0029 teaches 700 um) the glass layer has a thickness in a range of about 20 microns to about 2 millimeter.
As to claim 7, Terui teaches an embedded component 80 located on the conductive layer 31A and attached to the third RDL 21/29F/23A/23B/25A.
Claim(s) 2, 5-9, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terui et al., US 2016/0020164, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al., US 9,406,658.
In re claim 2, Terui fails to teach a cavity wall located external to a periphery of the conductive layer, and a third dielectric layer located in the cavity wall.
Lee (figure 8) teaches a cavity wall 706 located external to a periphery of the conductive layer 840, and a third dielectric layer (unlabeled dielectric that fills cavity) located in the cavity wall 706.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cavity of Lee in the invention of Terui because it is a conventionally known and used equivalent way of embedding a component. 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).
Pertaining to claim 5, though Terui fails to teach the glass layer 11 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 glass in the invention of Terui because silicon and oxygen glass is a conventionally known and used glass. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
In claim 8, though Terui fails to teach the embedded component is attached to the third RDL via solder, and further comprising underfill between the embedded component and a cavity floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the solder and an underfill in the invention of Terui because they are both 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).
Regarding claim 9, though Terui fails to teach the embedded component is a photonic integrated circuit (PIC), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a PIC in the invention of Terui because a PIC is a conventionally known and used embedded component. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 11, though Terui fails to teach the third RDL located on the conductive layer is characterized by rounded walls, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use rounded sidewalls in the invention of Terui because rounded sidewalls are 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 13, though Terui fails to teach an epoxy layer between the glass layer and the second dielectric layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an epoxy layer in the invention of Terui because an epoxy layer is 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 14, though Terui fails to teach an epoxy layer adjacent to the glass layer and located on the second dielectric layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an epoxy layer in the invention of Terui because an epoxy layer is 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 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 should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. 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 is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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 10/6/26
