DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited within the IDS documents have been considered.
IDS document dates: May 7, 2026 and July 2, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 12, and 23 recite a concentration limitation.
Specifically: claim 6 recites “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material”; claim 12 recites “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material”; claim 23 recites “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second SOG material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first SOG material”.
The use of the phrase ‘substantially more’ renders these claims indefinite, as the proper metes and bounds of the claim cannot be accurately ascertained. The specification provides a definition, by way of one example, in paragraph 0018:
“ ’Substantially more dopants’ in a second layer may refer to more than 10x the amount of dopants of the first layer. ”
This definition provided by the applicant does not offer any precise value or range for what would or could be, and the use of the term ‘may’ in the disclosure only adds to the ambiguity of the limitation in the claims. Instead, the definition within the specification is permissive and non-limiting, and the specification does not define the 10x relationship as a required threshold, minimum value, or objective boundary for the claim term. In addition, the definition, if added to the claim, would also be an open-ended range which would also render the claim indefinite. See also MPEP 2173.05 (b) III. D.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 21, 22, and 24-27 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the disclosed invention regarding:
An integrated circuit package substrate comprising:
a core layer comprising a plurality of metal vias electrically coupling a first side of the core layer and a second side of the core layer opposite the first side; and
a build-up layer on the first side of the core layer, the build-up layer comprising metal vias within a dielectric material and electrically connected to the metal vias of the core layer, wherein the dielectric material comprising comprises Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus and the metal vias comprise sidewalls that are substantially perpendicular to an upper surface of the core layer., as recited within claim 1.
An integrated circuit device comprising:
a core layer comprising a plurality of metal vias electrically coupling a first side of the core layer and a second side of the core layer opposite the first side;
build-up layers on the core layer, the build-up layer comprising metal vias electrically connected to the metal vias of the core layer, at least one build-up layer comprising a dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus and metal vias comprising substantially vertical sidewalls, as recited within claim 9.
An integrated circuit package substrate comprising:
a core layer comprising a plurality of metal vias in a first spin-on-glass (SOG) material, the metal vias electrically coupling a first side of the core layer and a second side of the core layer opposite the first side; and
a build-up layer on the first side of the core layer, the build-up layer comprising metal vias within a second SOG material and electrically connected to the metal vias of the core layer, as recited within claim 21.
Claims 2-5, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1; claims 10, 11, and 13 depend from claim 9; claims 22 and 24-27 depend from claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued the following: “In particular, Applicant contends that the claim limitations are definite as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the specification. The MPEP makes clear that “[t]he use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree, does not automatically render the claim indefinite” and that a “claim is not indefinite if the specification provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree.” MPEP 2173.05(b). As noted in the Office Action, the specification provides the example 10x relationship between the concentrations of dopants in the recited layers. This disclosure in the specification would provide enough context for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the recited limitations, thus rendering these limitations definite under the tests put forth by the MPEP.”
However, the examiner contends that the claim limitations are indefinite as currently written, the applicant is improperly reading too much of the disclosure in the claim, and the sole example provided in the applicant’s disclosure is also permissive, non-limiting, and ambiguous.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent cited art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott B. Geyer (telephone: 571-272-1958). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10AM - 4PM (ET). 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, Christine S. Kim (telephone: 571-272-8458). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in U.S.A. or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT B GEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights