DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eid et al. (2020/0098668).
Re claim 1, Eid teaches an integrated circuit (IC) package (Figs. 1-4), comprising: a glass core (112, [37]) including a via (116), the via (116) extending between a first surface [36] and a second surface [36] of the glass core (112); and a channel (156) to extend between a fluid inlet (152) and a fluid outlet (154) of the glass core (112, [37]), the channel (156) to receive a cooling fluid to flow through the channel [41], the channel (156) fluidly isolated from the via (116).
Re claim 5, Eid teaches the IC package of claim 1, wherein the fluid inlet (152) and the fluid outlet (154) are on a same side of the glass core (Fig. 1). Re claim 6, Eid teaches the IC package of claim 1, wherein the channel (156) has a rectangular cross-sectional shape (Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haluzak et al. (2008/0259125).
Re claim 11, Haluzak teaches a glass core of an integrated circuit (IC) package substrate (Fig. 4), the glass core (12, 42) comprising: a first glass panel (12) having a first surface (“lower surface”) and a second surface (“upper surface”), a channel (22) in the first surface (“lower surface”), the channel (22) to extend into the first glass panel (12) by a distance less than a thickness of the first glass panel (Fig. 2A), the channel (22) to receive cooling fluid to flow through the channel between a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet of the first glass panel [44]; and a second glass panel (42) coupled to the first surface (“lower surface”) of the first glass panel (12, [44]), the second glass panel (42) to seal the channel (22) at an interface [44] between the first (12) and second (42) glass panels [44].
Re claim 12, Haluzak teaches the glass core of claim 11, wherein there is no bonding material between the first and second glass panels [43].
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haluzak et al. (2008/0259125).
Re claim 17, Haluzak teaches a method to produce a glass core of a semiconductor die (Figs. 1-4), the method comprising: providing a trench (22) in a first surface (“lower surface”) of a first glass substrate (12), the trench extending into the first glass substrate (12) by a distance less than a thickness of the first glass substrate (Fig. 2C); and coupling a second glass substrate (42) to the first surface (“lower surface”) of the first glass substrate (12) across the trench (Fig. 4), the trench and the second glass substrate (42) to define a channel [44], the channel to receive cooling fluid to flow through the channel between a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet of the first glass substrate [42-44].
Re claim 18, Haluzak teaches the method of claim 17, further including coupling the second glass substrate to the first surface of the first glass substrate by direct glass-to-glass bonding ([43], “glass frit bonding”).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eid et al. (2020/0098668) in view of Haluzak et al. (2008/0259125).
Re claim 2, Eid teaches the IC package of claim 1.
Eid does not explicitly teach wherein the glass core includes a first glass substrate coupled to a second glass substrate, the channel provided in a first surface of the first glass substrate, the second glass substrate coupled to the first surface to seal the channel at an interface between the first and second glass substrates.
Haluzak teaches a device (Fig. 4, [42-44]), wherein a glass core (12, 42) includes a first glass substrate (12) coupled to a second glass substrate (42), a channel (22) provided in a first surface (“lower surface”) of the first glass substrate (12), the second glass substrate (42) coupled to the first surface to seal the channel (22) at an interface between the first and second glass substrates [43].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Eid as taught by Haluzak since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eid et al. (2020/0098668) in view of Andry et al. (2008/0315403).
Re claim 4, Eid teaches the IC package of claim 1.
Eid does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet are on opposite sides of the glass core.
Andry teaches a device (Figs. 2, 3A-B) wherein a fluid inlet (I) and a fluid outlet (O) are on opposite sides of a core (301).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Eid as taught by Andry since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eid et al. (2020/0098668) in view of the following reasons.
Re claim 7, Eid teaches the IC package of claim 1.
Eid does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the channel is between 50 microns and 500 microns.
However, Applicant has not shown wherein a width of the channel is between 50 microns and 500 microns has a specific, disclosed criticality that is unexpected and would not have been determined through routine experimentation of one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the channel width so as to customize, optimize, or otherwise meet customer space and design requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-10, 13-14 and 19-22 are 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.
Re claim 3, Eid in view of Haluzak teaches the IC package of claim 2, yet remains explicitly silent to further including a photo imageable dielectric (PID) layer at the interface between the first and second glass substrates.
Re claim 8, Eid teaches the IC package of claim 1, yet remains explicitly silent to wherein the via has an hourglass shape and the channel has a triangular cross-sectional shape.
Re claim 9, Eid teaches the IC package of claim 1, yet remains explicitly silent to wherein the channel includes a first number of passages in a first region of the glass core and a second number of passages in a second region of the glass core, the first number of passages greater than the second number of passages.
Claim 10 is objected to for at least depending from objected claim 9.
Re claim 13, Haluzak teaches the glass core of claim 11, yet remains explicitly silent to further including a photo imageable dielectric (PID) material between the first and second glass panels at the interface.
Re claim 14, Haluzak teaches the glass core of claim 11, yet remains explicitly silent to further including a first via extending between the first and second surfaces of the first glass panel and a second via extending between third and fourth surfaces of the second glass panel, the first via substantially aligned with the second via.
Re claim 19, Haluzak teaches the method of claim 17, yet remains explicitly silent to further including providing a photo imageable dielectric (PID) layer at an interface between the first and second glass substrates.
Claim 20 is objected to for at least depending from objected claim 19.
Re claim 21, Haluzak teaches the method of claim 17, yet remains explicitly silent to further including: providing first vias between the first surface and a second surface of the first glass substrate; providing second vias between a third surface and a fourth surface of the second glass substrate; and substantially aligning the first and second vias.
Claim 22 is objected to for at least depending from objected claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S BOWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/ADAM S BOWEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897