CTNF 18/091,543 CTNF 100840 DETAILED ACTION 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group (II) and Species (B and C) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 . 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 is acknowledged. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first dielectric layer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “a first dielectric region” in line 4 of claim 1 as “a first dielectric layer”. Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 3. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first dielectric layer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “a first dielectric region” in line 4 of claim 1 as “a first dielectric layer”. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the dielectric layer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “the dielectric layer” as “the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer”. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the glass panel" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “the glass panel” as “the glass substrate”. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the glass panel" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “the glass panel” as “the glass substrate”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Lars Martin Otfried Brusberg et al. (US 2021/0271037 A1; hereinafter “Brusberg”) . Regarding Claim 1 , Brusberg teaches an integrated circuit device substrate, comprising: a glass substrate (262, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes a glass body 262) with a first major surface (270, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes an upper surface 270) comprising a plateau region (PR, annotated Fig. 5B depicts a plateau region PR of a level height), a cavity region (CR, annotated Fig. 5B depicts a cavity region CR having a height lower than the plateau region PR), and a wall between the plateau region and the cavity region (W, annotated Fig. 5B depicts a wall between the plateau region PR and cavity region CR), wherein the first major surface comprises thereon a first dielectric region (266 and 288, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes waveguides 262 comprised of a dielectric glass and a dielectric polymer layer 288), and wherein the plateau region comprises a plurality of conductive pillars (290, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes peripheral conductive vias 290), and a second major surface of the glass substrate opposite the first major surface (274, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes a lower surface 274 opposite the first major surface 270), wherein the second major surface comprises thereon a second dielectric layer (298, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes a dielectric material layer 288 in a redistribution layer 295 on the second major surface 270), and wherein the second dielectric layer comprises at least one dielectric-free window underlying the cavity region (296, annotated Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes electrical transmission elements 296 arranged in the dielectric layer 298 underlying the cavity region CR wherein the electrical transmission elements would comprise dielectric-free windows comprising conductive materials in the dielectric-free window). PNG media_image1.png 413 782 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2 , Brusberg teaches the substrate of claim 1, further comprising an arrangement of conductive contacts in the cavity region (283, Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes upper contact pads 283), wherein the conductive contacts are on the first dielectric layer (283, Fig. 5A and Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes wherein upper contact pads 283 are on the first dielectric layer 288). Regarding Claim 5 , Brusberg teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer each comprise a polymeric material (288 and 298, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes wherein dielectric material, such as found in dielectric layer 288 and 298 comprise a dielectric polymer). Regarding Claim 6 , Brusberg teaches the substrate of claim 5, wherein the dielectric layer is chosen from polyimide, benzocyclobutene polymers, and mixtures and combinations thereof (288 and 298, Fig. 5B, para [0126] describes wherein dielectric material, such as found in dielectric layer 288 and 298 comprise a dielectric polymer wherein para [0123] describes the dielectric polymer material may include a material such as benzocyclobutene). Regarding Claim 9 , Brusberg teaches the substrate of claim 2, further comprising an integrated circuit device mounted on the conductive contacts in the cavity region (330, annotated Fig. 5B, para [0127] describes wherein an IC 330 may be mounted on the conductive contacts 283 in the cavity region CR) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Martin Otfried Brusberg et al. (US 2021/0271037 A1; hereinafter “Brusberg”) in view of Kurtis Leschkies et al. (US 2021/0346983 A1; hereinafter “Leschkies”) . Regarding Claim 3 , Brusberg discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Brusberg fails to explicitly disclose the substrate of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer each comprise an inorganic material. However, Leschkies discloses a similar integrated circuit device substrate, wherein the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer each comprise an inorganic material (108, Fig. 2A, para [0020] describes an insulating layer 108 comprising an inorganic material filler such as silica particles in an organic epoxy resin material wherein insulating layer 108 comprises a first dielectric layer on an upper surface of a glass substrate 106 and a second dielectric layer on a lower surface of the glass substrate 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brusberg with Leschkies to further disclose an integrated circuit device substrate which comprises a first and second dielectric layer comprising an inorganic material in order to provide the advantage of providing an insulating material which may capacitively couple a silicon-based substrate and interconnections resulting in a decrease in current leakage between nearby electrical interconnections (Leschkies, para [0028]). Regarding Claim 4 , the combination of Brusberg and Leschkies discloses the substrate of claim 3, wherein the inorganic material comprises SiO x (Leschkies, 108, Fig. 2A, para [0020] describes the insulating layer 108 comprising an inorganic material filler such as silica (SiO 2 ) particles in an organic epoxy resin material) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Martin Otfried Brusberg et al. (US 2021/0271037 A1; hereinafter “Brusberg”) in view of the following arguments: Regarding Claim 7 , Brusberg discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Brusberg fails to explicitly disclose in the embodiment used to teach claim 1, wherein the glass panel is formed from a material chosen from silica, soda-lime glass, boro-silicate glass, and alumo-silicate glass. However, Brusberg teaches in the prior art section of the disclosure, wherein a glass panel is formed from a material chosen from silica, soda-lime glass, boro-silicate glass, and alumo-silicate glass (101, Fig. 2A, para [0112] describes a glass substrate 101 which may be comprised of a material chosen from soda-lime, borosilicate, fused silica, and aluminosilicate glasses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiment of Brusberg used to disclose all the limitations of claim 1 with the prior art embodiment of Brusberg to substitute the glass body substrate taught in Brusberg for the glass body substrate comprised of a soda-lime, borosilicate, fused silica, or aluminosilicate glass for the predictable result of providing a glass substrate body comprised of materials which are well-known in the art (see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)). Regarding Claim 8 , Brusberg discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Brusberg fails to explicitly disclose in the embodiment used to teach claim 1, wherein the glass panel is transparent to broadband photonic curing light having a principal wavelength from about 200 nm to about 1500 nm. However, Brusberg teaches in the prior art section of the disclosure, wherein a glass panel is transparent to broadband photonic curing light having a principal wavelength from about 200 nm to about 1500 nm (101, Fig. 2A, para [0112] describes a glass substrate 101 which may be comprised of a material chosen from soda-lime, borosilicate, fused silica, and aluminosilicate glasses wherein upon combining the glass substrate body 262 with the materials known to comprise a glass substrate body as disclosed in the prior art section of Brusberg, the material of the glass substrate of the instant application would be comprised of a same material of the glass substrate of Brusberg, please see MPEP 2112.01 (I) wherein the structure of the glass substrate as recited by Brusberg is substantially identical to that of the claims therefore the claimed properties, such as transparency, or functions are presumed to be present). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiment of Brusberg used to disclose all the limitations of claim 1 with the prior art embodiment of Brusberg to substitute the glass body substrate taught in Brusberg for the glass body substrate comprised of a soda-lime, borosilicate, fused silica, or aluminosilicate glass for the predictable result of providing a glass substrate body comprised of materials which are well-known in the art (see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)). Regarding Claim 10 , Brusberg discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Brusberg fails to explicitly disclose in the embodiment used to teach claim 9, wherein the integrated circuit device is a photonic integrated circuit device. However, Brusberg teaches in a similar embodiment, wherein the integrated circuit device is a photonic integrated circuit device (545, Fig. 11D, para [0146] describes wherein an integrated circuit 545 mounted in a cavity region 540 may be an integrated circuit having optical input-output capability, for example a PIC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiment of Brusberg used to disclose all the limitations of claim 1 with the embodiment which describes an integrated circuit device disposed in a cavity region is a photonic integrated circuit device in order to provide the advantage of enabling a PIC to be disposed in a cavity resulting in an optical device which may have effective edge coupling and promote effective evanescence (Brusberg, para [0144] and para [0145]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Martin Otfried Brusberg et al. (US 2021/0271037 A1; hereinafter “Brusberg”) in view of Sayan Seal (US 2023/0317670 A1; hereinafter “Seal”) . Regarding Claim 11 , Brusberg discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Brusberg further discloses the substrate of claim 9, further comprising a solder joint between the integrated circuit device and the conductive contacts (334, Fig. 5B, para [0127] describes bonding bumps 334 between the IC 330 and conductive contacts 283 and para [0028] describes wherein bonding bumps may be solder bumps or copper pillars). Brusberg fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solder joint comprises an intermetallic compound of metals chosen from Cu, In, Sn, Bi and mixtures and combinations thereof, and wherein the solder joint has a melting temperature of greater than about 400 -°C. However, Seal teaches a similar integrated circuit device substrate, wherein the solder joint comprises an intermetallic compound of metals chosen from Cu, In, Sn, Bi (140, 142 and 144, Fig. 3E, para [0064] describes a transient liquid phase solder joint 140, 142 and 144 comprised of copper and tin or copper and nickel) and mixtures and combinations thereof, and wherein the solder joint has a melting temperature of greater than about 400 -°C (140, 142 and 144, Fig. 3E, para [0064] describes wherein the transient liquid phase solder joint 140, 142 and 144 will not reflow at temperatures around 400- °C resulting in the solder joint having a melting temperature greater than about 400 -°C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Brusberg with Seal to further disclose an integrated circuit device substrate wherein a solder joint is comprised of at least one of Cu, In, Sn or Bi and wherein the solder joint has a melting temperature of greater than about 400 -°C in order to provide the advantage of providing a solder joint which may remain stable up to very high temperatures enabling a device to operate at higher temperatures and still exhibit high reliability (Seal, para [0093]). Regarding Claim 12 , the combination of Brusberg and Seal discloses the substrate of claim 11, wherein the intermetallic compound comprises Cu x Sn y (Seal, 140, 142 and 144, Fig. 4R, para [0064] describes wherein the transient liquid phase solder joint 140, 142 and 144 may be comprised of copper and tin). Regarding Claim 13 , the combination of Brusberg and Seal discloses the substrate of claim 11, wherein the intermetallic compound comprises Ni x Sn y (Seal, 140, 142 and 144, Fig. 4R, para [0064] describes wherein the transient liquid phase solder joint 140, 142 and 144 may be comprised of nickel and tin). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571(272)-1864. 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. /ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 2 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 3 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 4 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 5 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 6 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 7 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 8 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 9 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 10 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/091,543 Page 11 Art Unit: 2898
Prosecution Insights