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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 09 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09 March 2026.
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, 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatani et al. (US 2014/0124777 A1) (Nakatani).
Nakatani discloses an integrated circuit package. See the title. The package includes a first layer of glass (101), buildup layers (i.e., films) (106) and a wiring pattern (103) through each layer (i.e., “an electrically conductive interconnect structure through the first layer and second layer”). See Figure 8, and paragraphs [0082] and [0088].
PNG
media_image1.png
318
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Nakatani discloses the substrate may be a glass having a thickness of 25 to 50 µm and no other traditional core layers. The article falls within the definition of coreless provided by the instant specification in paragraph [0021]:
A coreless package substrate 100 is a package substrate that does not have a traditional core layer, such as an organic core layer, a glass core layer, or the like. More generally, the coreless package substrate 100 may be a package substrate that does not include a reinforcement layer that is approximately 100µm or greater. While glass sheets 110 are included in the package substrate 100, the glass sheets 110 are not considered to be cores since they have thicknesses that are less than approximately 100µm.
The features of claim 5 can be seen in Figure 8.
As to claims 6 and 7, Nakatani discloses the glass substrate 101 may have a thickness of 25 to 50 µm. Nakatani further discloses stacking build-up layers (collectively corresponding to the second layer) to achieve a thickness of 0.2 mm (200 µm). See paragraph [0082]. In rejecting this claim, a “second layer” is interpreted to be open to plural layers of films that can be considered a single build-up layer.
As to claim 11, Nakatani discloses employing the circuit in a server or computer in paragraph [0121].
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (US 2021/0078296 A1) (Kong).
Kong discloses forming packages that include a glass layer 618a (i.e., first layer), a dielectric adhesive 606 (i.e., buildup layer). See Figure 6 and paragraphs [0035]-[0036]. Electrically conductive interconnect structure 612, 613 passes through the adhesive 606 and glass layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
590
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Kong teaches a solder resist layer 630 over a surface of the glass layer 618a. See Figure 6 and paragraph [0036].
The features of claim 5 can be seen in Figures 3 and 6.
As to claim 8 and 9, Kong disclose an additional glass layer 618b below the adhesive layer 606 (i.e., second layer) having conductive interconnect structure therethrough. See Figure 6.
As to claim 10, Kong shows the interconnect structure comprises tapered walls in layer 634 portion of Figure 6.
As to claim 11, Kong discloses the package may be employed in a computer in paragraph [0041].
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2021/0078296 A1) (Kong) as applied to claim 1 above.
Kong anticipates claims 1 and 3 for the reasons recited above.
Kong teaches a solder resist layer 630 over a surface of the glass layer 618a. See Figure 6 and paragraph [0036]. Kong fails to disclose an adhesive layer between the solder resist layer and the first glass layer.
However, Kong teaches employing “one or more glass layers,” and envisages a package having three glass layers 418a-418c and an additional adhesive layer between the glasses. See the abstract and Figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed additional glass layers in the embodiment in Figure 6 of Kong. The rationale for doing so is Kong teaches one or more glass layers, and it has been held to have been obvious to have duplicated prior art parts. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Modifying Kong in such a manner results in a structure corresponding to the structure required of claim 4. In this regard, the result of adding an additional glass layer would result in the structure:
630 solder resist (corresponding to the claim 3 solder resist)
618a glass
606 adhesive (corresponding to the claim 4 adhesive)
618b glass (corresponding to the first glass layer)
additional adhesive (corresponding to the second layer)
additional glass
634 organic portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0312797 A1 teaches tapered glass vias. US 2026/0053020 A1 teaches packages which employ glass insulating layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784