Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 04/27/2026 has been entered in the record and considered. With respect to the rejection claims 35 USC 102 (a)(1) is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendments. The following new rejection to claims 1-14 is under 35 USC 103(a). Claims 1-19 are under consideration. Claims 1-14 are rejected. Claims 15-19 are allowed.
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 and 12 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 and 12 recites:
that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material.” The term “substantially more” is a term of degree.
The specification provides only a single, isolated reference indicating that “substantially more dopants” may refer to more than ten times (10×) the amount of dopants in the first dielectric material. However, this disclosure is permissive and non-limiting, and the specification does not define the 10× relationship as a required threshold, minimum value, or objective boundary for the claim term.
Because the specification does not consistently define or otherwise limit the scope of “substantially more,” one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty how much greater the dopant concentration in the second dielectric material must be relative to the first dielectric material to satisfy the claim limitation.
Accordingly, claims 6 and 12 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ma teaches an integrated circuit package substrate (Fig. 1E) comprising:
a core layer (Fig. 1E: 150 of the substrate 100 and ¶0033) comprising a dielectric material (such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029) and a plurality of metal vias (160 and 165) electrically coupling a first side of the core layer and a second side of the core layer opposite the first side (Fig. 1E), the dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029); and
a plurality of build-up layers (Fig. 1E: 130 and 140) on the core layer (150), the build-up layers (130) comprising metal vias (139a) electrically connected to the metal vias (160 and 165) of the core layer (150).
With respect to the recited dielectric composition, Ma discloses that the core may comprise a substrate formed of glass (¶0029). Ma further teaches that suitable glass materials include silica glass (approximately 100% SiO₂), soda-lime glass, borosilicate glass, and alumosilicate glass (¶0029), thereby teaching a dielectric material including silicon and oxygen.
Ma additionally teaches that embodiments are not limited to silica-based compositions and that materials and additives may be combined with silica or other base materials to form a glass having desired physical properties (¶0029). Examples of disclosed additives include boron and carbonates, among others (¶0029). Further, Ma expressly teaches that, according to some embodiments, glass may include carbon as one of the material’s constituents and provides examples of glass compositions that may comprise carbon (¶0030).
Therefore, Ma teaches selectable and combinable glass constituents for the same core dielectric material including silicon, oxygen, carbon, and boron. To the extent Ma does not expressly exemplify one final glass composition simultaneously containing all recited constituents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to select carbon-containing glass constituents together with silica-based and boron-containing glass constituents expressly disclosed by Ma for incorporation into the glass core because Ma teaches combining base glass materials and additives to obtain desired physical properties of the glass substrate. Such selection among expressly disclosed alternatives and incorporation into a common glass dielectric represents no more than the predictable use of known materials according to Ma’s teaching.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the dielectric material of the core layer comprising silicon, oxygen, carbon, and at least one of boron or phosphorus as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches wherein the core layer (Fig. 4F: 410) comprises an adhesion promotion layer (430) between the dielectric material (410) and the metal vias (440).
Regarding claim 4, Ma teaches wherein sidewalls of the metal vias (160, 165) of the core layer (150) are substantially perpendicular to the first side and second side of the core layer (150) (see Fig. 1C or 1D or Fig. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2021/0257309 to Pietambaram et al. (Pietambaram).
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 from which this claim depends.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose wherein the adhesion promotion layer comprises Silicon and Oxygen or Silicon and Nitrogen.
Pietambaram discloses wherein the adhesion promotion layer (Fig. 3:304) comprises Silicon and Oxygen or Silicon and Nitrogen (¶0017).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the adhesion promotion layer of Ma with the adhesion promotion layer as taught by Pietambaram to provide good hermeticity to protect conductive structure from corrosion (¶0017).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2021/0193544 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends. Ma teaches wherein the dielectric material (150) is a first dielectric material and the build-up layers (Fig. 1E: 130 and 140) comprise at least one layer comprising a second dielectric material (133a).
Ma fails to explicitly disclose a second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus.
Lin discloses the build-up layers comprise at least one layer comprising a second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as PSG, ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the at least one build-up layer that comprises a second dielectric material of Ma with the at least one build-up layer as taught by Lin so as to provide good electrical insulation between conductive routing layers in a package substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Ma as previously modified (see 112(b) rejection above) discloses an integrated circuit device including a first dielectric material and a second dielectric material comprising dopants such as boron and/or phosphorus, as required by claim 6. However, Ma does not explicitly disclose that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric material,” as recited in claim 6.
Nevertheless, the relative dopant concentration between dielectric layers is a result-effective variable, because dopant concentration is known in the art to affect dielectric properties such as electrical performance, stability, and process compatibility. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or optimize the dopant concentration in one dielectric layer relative to another to achieve desired material or device characteristics (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In accordance with established case law, where the prior art recognizes a variable as affecting the result, optimization of that variable through routine experimentation is considered obvious, even if the prior art does not disclose the claimed optimum or specific value. The claimed relative concentration therefore represents a difference in degree, not in kind, from the teachings of Ma.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second dielectric material with a higher dopant concentration than the first dielectric material, including a concentration that is substantially greater, as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Ma as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 from which this claim depends.
Ma teaches wherein the plurality of build- up layers (Fig. 1E: 130 and 140) comprise a first build-up layer (130) comprising a second dielectric material (133a) and a second build-up layer (140) comprising a third dielectric material (143a).
Ma fails to explicitly disclose the second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus and the third dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus.
Lin discloses the second dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus and the third dielectric material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (¶0019). Lin explicitly discloses each of the build-up layers includes dielectric layers and each of the dielectric layers includes material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as phosphosilicate glass (PSG)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the at least one build-up layer that comprises a second dielectric material of Ma with the at least one build-up layer as taught by Lin so as to provide good electrical insulation between conductive routing layers in a package substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 from which this claim depends. Ma teaches third dielectric material (143a) and the second dielectric material (133a).
Ma fails to explicitly disclose wherein a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the third dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material.
Lin discloses the third dielectric material comprising Boron or Phosphorus and second dielectric material comprising Boron or Phosphorus (¶0019). Lin explicitly discloses each of the build-up layers includes dielectric layers and each of the dielectric layers includes material comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as phosphosilicate glass (PSG)).
However, Ma as previously modified does not explicitly disclose that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the third dielectric material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric material,” as recited in claim 8.
Nevertheless, the relative dopant concentration between dielectric layers is a result-effective variable, because dopant concentration is known in the art to affect dielectric properties such as electrical performance, stability, and process compatibility. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or optimize the dopant concentration in one dielectric layer relative to another to achieve desired material or device characteristics (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In accordance with established case law, where the prior art recognizes a variable as affecting the result, optimization of that variable through routine experimentation is considered obvious, even if the prior art does not disclose the claimed optimum or specific value. The claimed relative concentration therefore represents a difference in degree, not in kind, from the teachings of Ma.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second dielectric material with a higher dopant concentration than the first dielectric material, including a concentration that is substantially greater, as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2019/0333850 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose a device comprising circuitry within the dielectric material of the core layer.
Lin discloses a device (Fig. 14: 71) comprising circuitry (Fig. 14: 22) within the dielectric material of the core layer (31, ¶0068).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the core layer of Ma with the circuitry as taught by Lin in order to electrically connect the semiconductor devices to the second routing circuitry (¶0068).
Claim 9 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2022/0310529 to Chen et al. (Chen).
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose a device comprising circuitry within the dielectric material of the core layer.
Chen discloses a device (Fig. 14: 300) comprising circuitry (310) within the dielectric material of the core layer (100, ¶0055).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the core layer of Ma with the circuitry as taught by Chen so that the device can be conveniently connected to the metal layer later for heat dissipation and shielding (¶0078).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2003/0148631 to Kuo et al. (Kuo).
Regarding independent claim 10, Ma teaches an integrated circuit device (Fig. 2: 200) comprising:
an integrated circuit package substrate (Fig. 2: combinations of 100 and 210) comprising:
a core layer (see Fig. 2: 150 with respect to Fig. 1E: 133a of the substrate 100 and ¶0033) comprising a dielectric material (150 such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029) and a plurality of metal vias (160 and 165), the dielectric material (150) comprising Silicon, Oxygen, and at least one of Boron or Phosphorus (such as boro-silicate glass, ¶0029); and
a build-up layers (see Fig. 2: 130 with respect to Fig. 1E: 130) on the core layer (150), the build-up layers (130) comprising metal vias (see Fig. 2: 130 with respect to Fig. 1E: 139a) electrically connected to the metal vias (160 and 165) of the core layer (150); and
an integrated circuit die (Fig. 2: 210) coupled to the integrated circuit package substrate (100).
¶0029 of Ma teaches glass materials including silica glass, soda-lime glass, borosilicate glass, alumosilicate glass, and further teaches that additional materials and additives may be combined with silica or other base materials to obtain desired physical properties. ¶0029 further teaches boron-containing glass compositions and alternative glass compositions including phosphate-based glass materials, thereby suggesting a dielectric glass material comprising silicon, oxygen, and at least one of boron or phosphorus.
Ma does not expressly disclose implementing the dielectric glass material as a spin-on-glass (SOG) material.
Kuo teaches formation and use of a spin-on-glass (SOG) dielectric layer (16) and teaches that SOG is a known technique for forming dielectric glass layers (¶0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to implement the dielectric glass material of the core layer of Ma using spin-on-glass (SOG) processing as taught by Kuo, because Kuo teaches SOG as a known approach for forming dielectric glass layers and such substitution represents use of a known manufacturing form for a known dielectric material to achieve predictable fabrication and integration benefits.
The modification would have yielded a core layer comprising a dielectric spin-on-glass material while retaining the silicon, oxygen, and boron or phosphorus containing glass compositions taught by Ma. Accordingly, claim 10 would have been obvious.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2003/0148631 to Kuo et al. (Kuo) and further in view of US Pub # 2021/0193544 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding claim 11, Ma as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 from which this claim depends. Ma teaches wherein the dielectric material (150) is a first dielectric material.
Ma fails to explicitly disclose at least one build-up layer comprises a second SOG dielectric material comprising silicon, oxygen, and at least one of boron or phosphorus.
Lin discloses at least one build-up layer comprises a second SOG dielectric material comprising silicon, oxygen, and at least one of boron or phosphorus (such as PSG, ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substitute the at least one build-up layer that comprises a second dielectric material of Ma with the at least one build-up layer as taught by Lin so as to provide good electrical insulation between conductive routing layers in a package substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Ma as previously modified (see 112(b) rejection above) discloses an integrated circuit device including a first dielectric material and a second dielectric material comprising dopants such as boron and/or phosphorus, as required by claim 12. However, Ma does not explicitly disclose that “a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the second dielectric SOG material is substantially more than a concentration of Boron or Phosphorus in the first dielectric SOG material,” as recited in claim 12.
Nevertheless, the relative dopant concentration between dielectric layers is a result-effective variable, because dopant concentration is known in the art to affect dielectric properties such as electrical performance, stability, and process compatibility. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or optimize the dopant concentration in one dielectric layer relative to another to achieve desired material or device characteristics (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In accordance with established case law, where the prior art recognizes a variable as affecting the result, optimization of that variable through routine experimentation is considered obvious, even if the prior art does not disclose the claimed optimum or specific value. The claimed relative concentration therefore represents a difference in degree, not in kind, from the teachings of Ma.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second dielectric material with a higher dopant concentration than the first dielectric material, including a concentration that is substantially greater, as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Ma as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 from which this claim depends. Ma as previously modified discloses formation and use of a spin-on-glass (SOG) dielectric layer (16) and teaches that SOG is a known technique for forming dielectric glass layers (¶0037).
Ma teaches wherein the build-up layer (130) comprising the second dielectric SOG material (Fig. 1E: 133a) is adjacent the core layer (150).
Claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2003/0148631 to Kuo et al. (Kuo) and further in view of US Pub # 2019/0333850 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding claim 14, Ma as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 from which this claim depends.
Ma as previously modified fails to explicitly disclose a device comprising circuitry within the dielectric SOG material of the core layer.
Lin discloses a device (Fig. 14: 71) comprising circuitry (Fig. 14: 22) within the dielectric material of the core layer (31, ¶0068).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the core layer of Ma with the circuitry as taught by Lin in order to electrically connect the semiconductor devices to the second routing circuitry (¶0068).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2016/0284637 to Ma et al. (Ma) in view of US Pub # 2003/0148631 to Kuo et al. (Kuo) and further in view of US Pub # 2022/0310529 to Chen et al. (Chen).
Regarding claim 14, Ma as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 from which this claim depends.
Ma as previously modified fails to explicitly disclose a device comprising circuitry within the dielectric SOG material of the core layer.
Chen discloses a device (Fig. 14: 300) comprising circuitry (310) within the dielectric material of the core layer (100, ¶0055).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the core layer of Ma with the circuitry as taught by Chen so that the device can be conveniently connected to the metal layer later for heat dissipation and shielding (¶0078).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The examiner’s reasons for independent claim 15 and their respective dependent claims are of record in the January 27, 2026 Office action.
Dependent claims 16-19 inherit the above allowable subject matter and are similarly allowed.
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.”
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see (Pages 1-4), filed April 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references/embodiments being used in the current rejection.
Regarding 112 (b) rejection to claims 6 and 12, Applicant’s remarks do not address the rejection of claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the previous Office Action. No arguments were presented responsive to the Examiner’s finding that the term “substantially more than” is indefinite, and no amendment was made to provide objective boundaries for the claimed limitation.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained and made final.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat # 11,088,059 to Chen et al., US Pat # 10,867,879 to Yu et al. and US Pat # 5,841,075 to Hanson.
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 MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights