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 claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 2/3/2026 is acknowledged.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai (20230062138).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tsai teaches a apparatus, comprising:
a glass core substrate (fig. 2: 102; par. 19) comprising a first surface (surface directly contacting 122) and an opposing second surface (surface opposite surface directly contacting 122); and
a metallization structure (fig. 2: 125/106/104) within an opening of the glass core substrate (see fig. 2 above), the metallization structure comprising:
a first portion (fig. 2: 125); and
a second portion (fig. 2: 106) continuous with the first portion, the second portion on the first portion at an interface between the first and second portions,
the first portion having a first lateral width (fig.2: d1’) at the interface and the second portion having a second lateral width (fig. 2: d1) at the interface,
wherein the second lateral (d1) width is not less than 25% greater than the first lateral width (par. 60 teaches that d1 and d1’, having width ranges that allow for this percentage, reads on this limitation), and wherein the second portion comprises a top surface substantially coplanar with the second surface of the glass core substrate (please see fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 2, Tsai teaches a apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second lateral width is not less than 50% greater than the first lateral width (please see par. 60).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai teaches a apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first portion has a first centerline extending vertically through a length of the first portion and the second portion has a second centerline extending vertically through a length of the second portion, wherein the first and second centerlines are laterally misaligned by not more than 100 nm (please see fig. 2 above shows centerlines being in the middle of d1 and d1’).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai teaches a apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first portion extends through the first surface of the glass core substrate (please see fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, Tsai teaches a apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and second portions of the metallization structure each comprise copper, the copper having a substantially matching microstructure across the interface (par. 22 and 36).
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai (20230062138).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai teaches a system, comprising:
a glass core substrate (fig. 2: 102; par. 19) comprising a first surface (surface directly contacting 122) and an opposing second surface (surface opposite surface directly contacting 122);
a continuous metallization structure (fig. 2: 125/106/104) within the glass core substrate, the continuous metallization structure comprising a via extending through the first surface and a pad extending through the second surface, the pad on the via at an interface therebetween (please see fig. 2 above),
wherein the pad has a first lateral width (fig.2: d1’) at the interface that is not less than 25% greater than a second lateral width (fig. 2: d1) of the via at the interface (par. 60 teaches that d1 and d1’, having width ranges that allow for this percentage, reads on this limitation), and
wherein the pad comprises a top surface substantially coplanar with the second surface of the glass core substrate (please see fig. 2 above); and
one of an integrated circuit die or a printed circuit board coupled to the pad (please see fig. 1G).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai teaches a system of claim 10, wherein the first lateral width is not less than 50% greater than the second lateral width, and wherein the pad has a first centerline and the via has a second centerline laterally misaligned by not more than 50 nm (please see fig. 2 above shows centerlines being in the middle of d1 and d1’).
Regarding claim 13, Tsai teaches a system of claim 10, wherein the first and second portions of the metallization structure each comprise copper, the copper having a substantially matching microstructure across the interface (par. 22 and 36).
Regarding claim 14, Tsai teaches a system of claim 10, wherein the integrated circuit die is coupled to the pad, the system further comprising the printed circuit board coupled to the first surface of the glass core substrate (see fig. 1G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, dependent on claim 3, is 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.
Claim 6, dependent on claim 5, is 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.
Claim 7 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights