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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 21, line 1-2, third layer and second layer both read “143”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nitta et al. (JP2007281278).
With respect to claim 1, Nitta discloses a core for a package substrate (see FIG. 2, element 13), comprising: a first substrate (see FIG. 2, element 14) with a first surface and a second surface (see picture below); a first recess (see FIG. 2, element 19) into the first surface of the first substrate; a first layer (see FIG. 2, element 20) in the first recess, wherein the first layer is electrically conductive (see paragraph 75); a second layer (see FIG. 2, element 22) over the first layer, wherein the second layer is a dielectric layer (see paragraph 75); and a third layer (see FIG. 2, element 23) over the second layer, wherein the third layer is electrically conductive (see paragraph 75); a second substrate (see FIG. 2, element 25) with a third surface and a fourth surface (see picture below), wherein the third surface of the second substrate faces the first surface of the first substrate; a second recess (see picture below) in the third surface of the second substrate; and a fourth layer (see FIG. 2, element 24) in the second recess, wherein the fourth layer is electrically conductive (see paragraph 75), and wherein the fourth layer contacts the third layer.
With respect to claim 2, Nitta discloses a portion of the first surface directly contacts a portion of the third surface (see picture below).
With respect to claim 6, Nitta discloses the third layer (see FIG. 2, element 23) is thinner than the first layer (see FIG. 2, element 20, noting element 23 is clearly thinner than element 20).
With respect to claim 9, Nitta discloses the second layer comprises silicon and oxygen, or aluminum and oxygen (see paragraph 46, noting aluminum oxide).
With respect to claim 10, Nitta discloses the first recess is aligned with the second recess (see picture below, noting first and second recess are aligned).
With respect to claim 12, Nitta discloses the core is part of a package substrate that is coupled to a processor of a computing system (see paragraph 2, noting CPU).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Jain et al. (US20200066622).
With respect to claim 8, Nitta teaches the core (see FIG. 2, element 13) of claim 1.
Nitta does not expressly teach that the second layer has a thickness between approximately 1nm and approximately 50nm.
Jain, on the other hand, teaches the second layer has a thickness between approximately 1nm and approximately 50nm (see FIG. 1, element 113, paragraph 56, noting 1 μm or less).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Nitta and Jain to form the claimed invention in order to improve the functionality of the capacitor (see paragraph 55).
With respect to claim 23, Nitta teaches an electronic system (see paragraph 0001), comprising: a board; a package substrate with a core coupled to the board (see FIG. 2, element 13), wherein the core comprises: a first substrate (see FIG. 2, element 14); a second substrate (see FIG. 2, element 25) over the first substrate; and a capacitor (see FIG. 2, element 15) between the first substrate and the second substrate.
Nitta does not expressly teach that a die coupled to the package substrate.
Jain, on the other hand, teaches a die coupled to the package substrate (see FIG. 9, element 940, paragraph 111).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Nitta and Jain to form the claimed invention in order to reduce first droop and power delivery applications (see paragraph 51).
With respect to claim 25, the combined teachings of Nitta and Jain teach that the capacitor (see Nitta FIG. 2, element 15) is set into recesses into the first substrate (see Nitta FIG. 2, element 14) and the second substrate (see Nitta FIG. 2, element 25).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta and Jain, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Kawabe et al. (US20080239685).
With respect to claim 24, Nitta and Jain teaches the electronic system (see paragraph 0001) of claim 23.
Nitta and Jain do not expressly teach that the first substrate and the second substrate comprise glass.
Kawabe, on the other hand, teaches the first substrate and the second substrate comprise glass (see paragraph 19, noting borosilicate glass).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Nitta, Jain and Kawabe to form the claimed invention in order to obtain a capacitor having a large electrostatic capacity becomes easily realizable (see Kawabe paragraph 19).
Claims 11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Kawabe et al. (US20080239685).
With respect to claim 11, Nitta teaches the core (see FIG. 2, element 13) of claim 1.
Nitta does not expressly teach that the first substrate and the second substrate comprise glass.
Kawabe, on the other hand, teaches the first substrate and the second substrate comprise glass (see paragraph 19, noting borosilicate glass).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Nitta and Kawabe to form the claimed invention in order to obtain a capacitor having a large electrostatic capacity becomes easily realizable (see Kawabe paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 21, Nitta teaches a core, (see FIG. 2, element 13) comprising: a first substrate (see FIG. 2, element 14), a second substrate (see FIG. 2, element 25) over the first substrate, a first recess (see FIG. 2, element 19) into the first substrate; a second recess (see picture above) into the second substrate, wherein the second recess is over the first recess; and a capacitor (see FIG. 2, element 15) filling the first recess and the second recess.
Nitta does not expressly teach that wherein the first substrate comprises glass; wherein the second substrate comprises glass.
Kawabe, on the other hand, teaches wherein the first substrate comprises glass; wherein the second substrate comprises glass (see paragraph 19, noting borosilicate glass).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Nitta and Kawabe to form the claimed invention in order to obtain a capacitor having a large electrostatic capacity becomes easily realizable (see Kawabe paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 22, the combined teachings of Nitta and Kawabe teach that a first layer (see Nitta FIG. 2, element 20) that is electrically conductive (see Nitta paragraph 75) and a second layer (see Nitta FIG. 2, element 22) that is a dielectric (see Nitta paragraph 75) are provided in the first recess, and wherein a third layer (see Nitta FIG. 2, element 23) that is electrically conductive (see Nitta paragraph 75) is provided in the first recess and the second recess.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-5 and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 3, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, a first via in the first substrate, wherein the first via passes through a hole in the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer; and a second via in the second substrate, wherein the second via passes through a hole in the fourth layer, and wherein the first via directly contacts the second via, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 4, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, no seam at an interface between the first via and the second via, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 3.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 5, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, no seam at an interface between the third layer and the fourth layer, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 7, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, the first layer has a thickness between approximately 1nm and approximately 500nm, and wherein the third layer has a thickness between approximately 1nm and approximately 50nm, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER N LIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ESTHER N LIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847