DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the amendment to claim 17 (“a bridge embedded in one of the buildup layers of the package substrate”) makes the limitation of claim 18 (“wherein the bridge is embedded in the core”) fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends and the limitation of claim 19 (“wherein the bridge Is embedded in the buildup layers”) fail to further limit the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 11-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (U.S. PGPub 2024/0113030) in view of Elsherbini (U.S. PGPub 2020/0273840).
Regarding claim 11, Noguchi teaches an electronic package (Fig. 5, [0123]-[0124]), comprising:
a core, wherein the core comprises glass ([0048], 112),
a buildup layer over the core (114, [0047]),
a bridge embedded in the buildup layer (101, [0123]), and
through substrate vias (TSVs) through the bridge (501, [0123]).
Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein a portion of the buildup layer is over the bridge.
Elsherbini teaches a package comprising a bridge embedded in a buildup layer, wherein a portion of the buildup layer is over the bridge (Fig. 20, 148, [0090]-[0091]) as an alternative to an embodiment where a portion of the buildup layer is not over the bridge (Fig. 19H, 114-1, 102, [0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Elsherbini with Noguchi such that a portion of the buildup layer is over the bridge because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Noguchi and Elsherbini teaches pads below the bridge, wherein the pads are electrically coupled to the TSVs (Noguchi, Fig. 5, depicted at top of 112a, [0123]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Noguchi and Elsherbini teaches a first die over the buildup layer and a second die over the buildup layer, wherein the first die is communicatively coupled to the second die through the bridge (Noguchi, 201a/202a, [0124]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Noguchi and Elsherbini teaches wherein the first die and the second die are configured to receive power through the TSVs (Noguchi, [0124]).
Regarding claim 17, Noguchi teaches an electronic system (Fig. 5, [0123]-[0124]), comprising:
a board and package substrate coupled to the board ([0123], solder bumps 110c is board side of the package substrate; [0053], solder bumps 110c bonded to a PCB),
wherein the package substrate comprises:
a core, wherein the core comprises glass ([0048], 112),
buildup layers over and under the core (114/116, [0047]),
a bridge embedded in one of the build-up layers of the package substrate, wherein the bridge comprises through substrate vias (TSVs) (101, [0123], [0047]; 501, [0123]), and
a first die over the buildup layer and a second die over the buildup layer, wherein the first die is communicatively coupled to the second die through the bridge (201a/202a, [0124]).
Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein a portion of the buildup layer is over the bridge.
Elsherbini teaches a package comprising a bridge embedded in a buildup layer, wherein a portion of the buildup layer is over the bridge (Fig. 20, 148, [0090]-[0091]) as an alternative to an embodiment where a portion of the buildup layer is not over the bridge (Fig. 19H, 114-1, 102, [0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Elsherbini with Noguchi such that a portion of the buildup layer is over the bridge because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkinepally (U.S. PGPub 2021/0305163) in view of Rho (U.S. PGPub 2023/0307304).
Regarding claim 1, Akkinepally teaches an electronic package (Fig. 6) comprising:
a package substrate (202, [0052]),
a cavity in the package substrate (see Fig. 4C, [0044]),
a bridge in the cavity, wherein the bridge comprises through substrate vias (TSVs) (100, 561, [0052]), and
pads at a bottom of the cavity, wherein the TSVs are electrically coupled to the pads (656, [0052]).
Akkinepally does not explicitly teach wherein the package comprises a core which comprises glass and wherein the pads have a top surface above a bottom surface of the cavity.
Rho teaches wherein a package substrate comprising a cavity comprises a glass core (Fig. 2, [0054]-[0055]) and wherein pads at a bottom of the cavity have a top surface above a bottom surface of the cavity (283, [0128]-[0130]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Rho with Akkinepally such that the package comprises a core which comprises glass and wherein pads at a bottom of the cavity have a top surface above a bottom surface of the cavity for the purpose of allowing increased miniaturization and improved electrical properties and providing pads for the glass core (Rho, [0005]-[0006], [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Akkinepally and Rho teaches vias through the core, wherein the vias are electrically coupled to the pads at the bottom of the cavity (Rho, Figs. 2-3, 232, [0068]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Akkinepally and Rho for the purpose of providing a direct connection (Rho, [0134]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Akkinepally and Rho teaches a buildup layer over the core and vias through the buildup layer that are coupled to the TSVs (Akkinepally, 163, [0051]; Rho, Fig. 4b, 29, [0136]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Akkinepally and Rho for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Akkinepally and Rho teaches a first die over the buildup layer, and a second die over the buildup layer, wherein the first die and the second die are coupled to the bridge through the vias (Akkinepally, 114-1, 114-2, [0027], [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Akkinepally and Rho for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Akkinepally and Rho teaches wherein a seed layer is provided between the pads and the bottom of the cavity (Rho, [0157]-[0161]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Akkinepally and Rho for the purpose of improving pad adhesion to glass (Rho, [0157]).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkinepally (U.S. PGPub 2021/0305163) in view of Rho (U.S. PGPub 2023/0307304) and Mahajan (U.S. PGPub 2020/0286814).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Akkinepally and Rho does not explicitly teach wherein a liner lines sidewalls of the cavity and the bottom of the cavity.
Mahajan teaches a package substrate having a cavity and a die in the cavity (Fig. 5D, 515, 520, [0092]-[0096]), wherein a liner lines sidewalls of the cavity and bottom of the cavity ([0096]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Mahajan with Akkinepally and Rho such that a liner lines sidewalls of the cavity and the bottom of the cavity because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Akkinepally, Rho, and Mahajan teaches wherein the liner comprises silicon and nitrogen (Majajan, [0096]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Akkinepally, Rho, and Mahajan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkinepally (U.S. PGPub 2021/0305163) in view of Rho (U.S. PGPub 2023/0307304), Mahajan (U.S. PGPub 2020/0286814), Nie (U.S. PGPub 2020/0312771), and Choi (U.S. PGPub 2022/0037261).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the combination of Akkinepally, Rho, and Mahajan does not explicitly teach wherein a photoimageable dielectric (PID) is provided over the liner at the bottom of the cavity, and wherein a die attach film (DAF) is provided between the bridge and the PID, and wherein the DAF surrounds the pads.
Nie teaches a die with pads (Fig. 5A, 501, 507, [0034]), a die attach film provided surrounding the pads (Fig. 5F, 511, [0038]), and a dielectric layer provided over the die attach film, where the die attach film is provided between the die and the dielectric layer (Fig. 5L, 517 , [0041]). Nie is silent on the material or properties of the dielectric layer.
Choi teaches wherein a dielectric layer formed to surround a pad bonded to a die pad is formed of a photoimageable dielectric (Fig. 12, 40, [0077], [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nie and Choi with Akkinepally, Rho, and Mahajan such that a photoimageable dielectric (PID) is provided over the liner at the bottom of the cavity, and wherein a die attach film (DAF) is provided between the bridge and the PID, and wherein the DAF surrounds the pads for the purpose of providing die attach films for an embedded TSV die (Nie, [0003], [0023]-[0024]) with a known appropriate material for the dielectric layer (Choi, [0024]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkinepally (U.S. PGPub 2021/0305163) in view of Rho (U.S. PGPub 2023/0307304), Mahajan (U.S. PGPub 2020/0286814) and May (U.S. PGPub 2021/0134727).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Akkinepally, Rho, and Mahajan does not explicitly teach wherein a photoimageable dielectric (PID) is provided over the liner at the bottom of the cavity.
May teaches wherein a photoimageable dielectric is provided over chip pads (Fig. 1I, 124, [0030]-[0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of May with Akkinepally, Rho, and Mahajan such that a photoimageable dielectric (PID) is provided over the liner at the bottom of the cavity for the purpose of providing reduced bump pitch (May, [0010]-[0012]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (U.S. PGPub 2024/0113030) in view of Elsherbini (U.S. PGPub 2020/0273840) and Alur (U.S. PGPub 2021/0257303).
Regarding claim 13, Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the TSVs are electrically coupled to the pads by solder.
Alur teaches a package comprising a bridge embedded in a buildup layer (Fig. 1A, 110, [0020]),
TSVs through the bridge (Fig. 6, [0071]-[0073]),
pads below the bridge, wherein the pads are electrically coupled to the TSVs (622, [0072]),
wherein the TSVs are electrically coupled to the pads by solder (641, [0072]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Alur with Noguchi and Elsherbini such that the TSVs are electrically coupled to the pads by solder for the purpose of connecting the pads and TSVs (Alur, [0072]-[0073]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (U.S. PGPub 2024/0113030) in view of Elsherbini (U.S. PGPub 2020/0273840) and Zhou (U.S. PGPub 2020/0335443).
Regarding claim 14, Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the device comprises conductive portions outside a footprint of the bridge, wherein the conductive portions are not electrically coupled to circuitry of the electronic package.
Zhou teaches an electronic package comprising a buildup layer (Fig. 5B, 532/530, [0056]), a bridge embedded in the buildup layer (Fig. 5D, 540, [0058]),
wherein the device comprises conductive portions outside a footprint of the bridge, wherein the conductive portions are not electrically coupled to circuitry of the electronic package (Figs. 5C-5D, 510, [0054], [0057]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zhou with Noguchi and Elsherbini such that the device comprises conductive portions outside a footprint of the bridge, wherein the conductive portions are not electrically coupled to circuitry of the electronic package for the purpose of providing etch stop layers during cavity formation (Zhou, [0032]-[0033]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (U.S. PGPub 2024/0113030) in view of Elsherbini (U.S. PGPub 2020/0273840) and Lee (U.S. PGPub 2023/0026293).
Regarding claim 18, Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the bridge is embedded in the core.
Lee teaches wherein a bridge die is embedded in a buildup layer over a core (Fig. 1, 200, 500, 110, [0026]-[0029]) or embedded in the core layer (Fig. 6, [0134]-[0138]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Lee with Noguchi and Elsherbini such that the bridge is embedded in the core for the purpose of making the package thin and light ([Lee, [0144]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (U.S. PGPub 2024/0113030) in view of Elsherbini (U.S. PGPub 2020/0273840) and Sankman (U.S. PGPub 2020/0303309).
Regarding claim 20, Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile.
Sankman teaches wherein a package comprising a bridge die connected to first and second chips is part of a personal computer, server, or mobile device ([0062], Fig. 1A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Sankman with Noguchi and Elsherbini such that the electronic system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile for the purpose of utilizing the electronic system in a computer system (Sankman, [0062]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights