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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to Election/Restrictions, applicant elected claims 1-9. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. application # 18091022 (Hereinafter ‘022). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1: ‘022 discloses:
An electronic package, comprising (Claim 1):
a core, wherein the core comprises glass (Claim 1); and
a through glass via (TGV) through a thickness of the core, wherein the TGV comprises a top surface that is non-planar and includes a symmetric ridge on the non-planar top surface (Claim 1).
With respect to claim 2: ‘022 discloses:
The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the non-planar surface is a dished surface, and wherein the symmetric ridge extends up from the dished surface (Claims 1 & 3).
With respect to claim 3: ‘022 discloses:
The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the symmetric ridge is symmetric about a centerline of the TGV (Claim 1).
With respect to claim 4: ‘022 discloses:
The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the symmetric ridge has a standoff height up to approximately 10µm (Claim 2).
With respect to claim 5: ‘022 discloses:
The electronic package of claim 4, wherein the standoff height is up to approximately 5µm (Claim 2).
With respect to claim 6: ‘022 discloses:
The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the TGV comprises a bottom surface that is non-planar and includes a symmetric ridge on the non-planar bottom surface (Claim 1).
With respect to claim 7: ‘022 discloses:
The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the TGV has sloped sidewalls (Claim 3).
With respect to claim 8: ‘022 discloses:
The electronic package of claim 7, wherein the TGV has an hourglass shaped cross- section (Claim 9).
With respect to claim 9: ‘022 discloses
The electronic package of claim 1, wherein the electronic package is part of a computing system for a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile (Claim 10).
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, 3, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a (1) as being anticipated by Budd et al. (US 2017/0047312, hereinafter Budd).
With respect to claim 1, Budd discloses an electronic package (Fig. 4A-B), comprising: a core (430), wherein the core comprises glass (Para 0055 – 430 is fabricated using glass); an a through glass via (TGV) through a thickness of the core (431/434 – Para 0034 and 0055), wherein the TGV comprises a top surface that is non-planar and includes a symmetric ridge on the non-planar top surface (Fig. 4B – top surface of 434 is non-planar and has a symmetric ridge).
With respect to claim 3, Budd discloses wherein the symmetric ridge is symmetric about a centerline of the TGV (Fig. 4B).
With respect to claim 6, Budd discloses wherein the TGV comprises a bottom surface that is non-planar and includes a symmetric ridge on the non-planar bottom surface (434 of Fig. 4B).
With respect to claim 7, Budd discloses wherein the TGV has sloped sidewalls (Fig. 4B – sidewalls of 434).
With respect to claim 9, Budd discloses wherein the electronic package is part of a computing system for a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile (Para 0072 – server).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd in view of Uzoh et al. (US 2012/0326326, hereinafter Uzoh).
With respect to claim 2, Budd discloses the electronic package of claim 1.
Budd does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-planar surface is a dished surface, and wherein the symmetric ridge extends up from the dished surface.
In an analogous art, Uzoh discloses wherein the non-planar surface is a dished surface, and wherein the symmetric ridge extends up from the dished surface (para 0029; Fig. 1F &3A-3B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Budd’s disclose invention by having Uzoh’s disclosure in order to accommodate different shapes and needs of the semiconductor devices.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd in view of Cornejo et al. (US 2012/0048604, hereinafter Cornejo).
With respect to claim 8, Budd discloses the electronic package of claim 7.
Budd does not explicitly disclose wherein the TGV has an hourglass shaped cross- section.
In an analogous art, Cornejo disclose wherein the TGV has an hourglass shaped cross- section (para 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Budd’s disclose invention by having Cornejo’s disclosure in order to accommodate different shapes and needs of the semiconductor devices.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budd in view of Yang (CN 101587293, hereinafter Yang).
With respect to claim 4, Budd discloses the electronic package of claim 1.
Budd does not explicitly disclose wherein the symmetric ridge has a standoff height up to approximately 10µm.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses wherein the symmetric ridge has a standoff height up to approximately 10µm (Page 03; Para 01 – 720nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Budd’s disclosed invention by having Yang’s disclosure in order to achieve the optimal performance of the semiconductor device by adjusting different heights.
With respect to claim 5, Budd/Pietambaram discloses the electronic package of claim 4.
Budd does not explicitly disclose wherein the standoff height is up to approximately 5µm.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses wherein the standoff height is up to approximately 5µm (Page 03; Para 01 – 720nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Budd’s disclosed invention by having Yang’s disclosure in order to achieve the optimal performance of the semiconductor device by adjusting different heights.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Fairbanks Brent can be reached at 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.
/MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights