CTNF 18/091,022 CTNF 88433 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/21/2026. Applicant has elected Group II, corresponding to claims 1-10 and 19-20. Group I, corresponding to claims 11-18, is withdrawn from further consideration. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 1: “wherein a top surface (assumed to be 212) of the TGV (210) is not coplanar with a top surface of the core (201)” (Figs. 2 and 7 appear to be final products with the overburden layers removed, whereas Figs. 3-6 appear to be depictions of intermediate structures) 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1-6, 8, 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US # 20160284637) in view of Onohara (US # 20220346226) . PNG media_image1.png 234 443 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 1 , Ma (US # 20160284637) teaches an electronic package (see Figs. 1 and corresponding text), comprising: a core (150), wherein the core comprises glass ([0034]); and a through glass via (TGV) (160) through a thickness of the core (shown in Fig. 2). Although Ma discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the package wherein a top surface of the TGV is not coplanar with a top surface of the core; and a ridge on the top surface of the TGV, wherein the ridge is symmetric about a centerline of the TGV. Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. PNG media_image2.png 270 467 media_image2.png Greyscale For example, Onohara (US # 20220346226) is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a package (see Fig. 14Y and 14Z and corresponding text) comprising a glass core (41) wherein a top surface of a TGV (bottommost surface of 10, nearer to wiring 50, not including projecting member 15) is not coplanar with a top surface (“other surface” as described in [0100] is above the bottommost surface of feature 10) of the core; and a ridge (projecting member 15) on the top surface of the TGV, wherein the ridge is symmetric about a centerline of the TGV (it would have a circular cross-section because the hole is circular; see [0118]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the TGV of Ma with the protrusions suggested by Onohara would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Onohara would be to employ a package wherein a top surface of the TGV is not coplanar with a top surface of the core; and a ridge on the top surface of the TGV, wherein the ridge is symmetric about a centerline of the TGV. The rationale for this obvious modification is that the protrusion provides increased surface area for contacting additional levels of interconnects and structural resilience. Regarding Claim 2 , Onohara, as applied to claim 1, teaches the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the ridge has a standoff height up to approximately 10 microns ([0028]). Regarding Claim 3 , Ma does not explicitly teach the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the top surface of the TGV is dished. However, the normal and natural result of electroplating of high-aspect-ratio features is center-line depression profile (dished topography). Regarding Claim 4 , Onohara, as applied to claim 1, teaches the electronic package of claim 3, wherein a maximum depth of the ridge feature is 10 microns, thus the dished surface is within the claimed range (“up to approximately 20 microns”). Regarding Claim 5 , is obvious for the same reasons as explained in claim 4. Regarding Claim 6 , Onohara, as applied to claim 1, teaches the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the ridge is a ring (feature 15 rings around feature 10). Regarding Claim 8 , Onohara, as applied to claim 1, teaches the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the ridge has an outer sidewall with a profile that is different than a profile of an inner sidewall (the inner sidewall has a curvature, the outer does not). Regarding Claim 10 , Ma teaches the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the electronic package is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile ([0057]). Regarding Claim 19 , Ma teaches a computing system, comprising: a board ([0003, 39]); a package substrate coupled to the board ([0039]), wherein the package substrate comprises the core/TGV features already rejected in claim 1, just duplicated on top and bottom (obvious for the same reasons, duplicated); build-up layers over and under the core (130, 140). Regarding Claim 20 , obvious for essentially the same reasons as claim 10 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US # 20160284637) in view of Onohara (US # 20220346226) and further in view of Yamamoto (US # 20210175193) . Regarding Claim 7 , Ma in view of Onohara fails to teach the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the ridge has a flat top surface and a sidewall that undercuts the top surface. Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Yamamoto is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a conductive feature including a ridge (133, 132, 134) has a flat top surface (shown on 133) and a sidewall (133 and 132) that undercuts the top surface (recessed from 133). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the ridge of Ma in view of Onohara with the undercuts suggested by Yamamoto would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Yamamoto would be to employ an electronic package of claim 1, wherein the ridge has a flat top surface and a sidewall that undercuts the top surface. The rationale for this obvious modification is that the undercut provides interlock/anchor. This would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art in reading both references because the existence and benefits of feature undercuts are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.01) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US # 20160284637) in view of Onohara (US # 20220346226) and further in view of Hu (US # 20190185373) . Regarding Claim 9 , Ma teaches a hole with tapered sidewalls ([0050]) however does not teach an hour-glass shape cross-section. Although Ma discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the TGV has an hourglass shaped cross-section. Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Hu (US # 20190185373) is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches forming glass core through-holes with hour-glass shapes (see Fig 1 and [0047]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the hole shape of Ma with the tapered sidewalls suggested by Hu would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Hu would be to employ an electronic package of claim 1, wherein the TGV has an hourglass shaped cross-section. The rationale for this obvious modification is that an hour-glass shape is the standard shape created by etching glass substrates with standard processes (such as laser-damage-and-etch “LIDE”). This would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art in reading both references because the existence and benefits of LIDE are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.01). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time. 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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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. /CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/091,022 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights