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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment, received 7/17/2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-17, 19, 27-30 and 32 are presented for examination.
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 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.
Claim(s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdelmoneum et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0085673 A1), hereafter referred to as Abdelmoneum.
As to claim 27, Abdelmoneum discloses an apparatus (fig 1, 100) comprising:
a first glass substrate (fig 1, bottommost glass substrate 122; [0012]);
a MEMS die (130; [0013]) on a surface of the first glass substrate (top surface of substrate 122); and
a second glass substrate (upper glass substrate 122) mounted to the first glass substrate (bottom glass substrate 122), the MEMS die (130) hermetically sealed within a vacuum-sealed cavity ([0016]) defined by the first and second glass substrates (upper and bottom substrates 122 bonded together as taught in [0012]), the surface of the first glass substrate defining a wall of the vacuum-sealed cavity (top surface of bottom substrate 122 defines a wall of the cavity).
As to claim 29, Abdelmoneum discloses the apparatus of claim 27 (paragraphs above),
wherein the surface is a first surface (fig 1, top surface), the apparatus including:
a TGV (116) extending through the first glass substrate (122) between the first surface and a second surface of the first glass substrate (top and bottom), the second surface (bottom) facing away from the first surface (top) of the first glass substrate (122); and
a build-up layer (126) on the second surface (bottom) of the first glass substrate (122), the TGV (116) to electrically couple the MEMS die (130) to the build-up layer (126).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmoneum in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0107100 A1), hereafter referred to as Cheng.
As to claim 28, Abdelmoneum discloses the apparatus of claim 27 (paragraphs above),
Abdelmoneum does not disclose wherein the MEMS die is a first MEMS die, the apparatus including a second MEMS die on the surface of the first glass substrate, the second MEMS die spaced apart from the first MEMS die.
Nonetheless, Cheng discloses wherein a device package includes a first cavity for a first MEMS device (fig 2, cavity 108a and MEMS device 106a), and a second MEMS device in a second cavity (fig 2, cavity 108b and MEMS device 106b), the first and second cavities spaced apart within the substrate (fig 2, cavities 108a and 108b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a second cavity and second MEMS die in the package of Abdelmoneum as taught by Cheng since this will increase the functionality of the semiconductor device.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmoneum in view of Paital et al. (US Pub. No 2023/0085411 A1), hereafter referred to as Paital.
As to claim 30, Abdelmoneum discloses the apparatus of claim 29 (paragraphs above),
Abdelmoneum does not disclose wherein the build-up layer is a first build-up layer and the TGV is a first TGV, the apparatus including:
a second TGV extending through the first glass substrate and the second glass substrate between the second surface of the first glass substrate and a third surface of the second glass substrate, the third surface facing away from the second surface of the first glass substrate; and
a second build-up layer on the third surface of the second glass substrate, the second TGV to electrically couple the first build-up layer to the second build-up layer.
Nonetheless, Paital discloses a die (fig 1, 108) in a glass core substrate (102) with a first build-up region (dielectric 122 and conductive traces 124), the portion is a first portion, and the TGV is a first TGV, the glass core including a second build-up region on the second surface (122/124 on opposite surface), the glass core including a second portion between the die (108) and the second build-up region (122/124), the glass core including a second TGV extending through the first portion and the second portion (118), the second TGV to electrically coupled the first build-up region to the second build-up region (118 connects the 122/124 on top to 122/124 on bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to form the build-up regions of Abdelmoneum as taught by Paital since this will improve the electrical interconnection of the IC devices.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmoneum in view of Hiraka et al. (US Pub. No 2004/0071424 A1), hereafter referred to as Hiraka.
As to claim 32, Abdelmoneum discloses the apparatus of claim 27 (paragraphs above),
Abdelmoneum does not disclose wherein the first glass substrate is directly bonded to the second glass substrate to define a monolithic glass core that encloses the MEMS die.
However, Abdelmoneum suggests that bonding of glass substrates 122 without adhesive is contemplated ([0012]).
Nonetheless, Hiraka discloses wherein glass substrates are directly bonded to define a monolithic glass substrate (fig 1a-g, [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to directly bond the glass substrates of Abdelmoneum as taught by Hiraka since Abdelmoneum suggests using other known bonding processes such as the one described by Hiraka to improve the composition of the combined substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-17, and 19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a first MEMS die in a first cavity of a glass score, a second MEMS die in a second cavity of the glass core and an interconnect extending between the first and second cavities, as recited in claim 1; or a glass core having a first surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, and a third surface defining a perimeter of the glass core and a MEMS die within a cavity in the glass core, the glass core defining a channel that extends through the glass core from the cavity to the third surface, as recited in claim 17.
Claims 2-7, 9-10 and 13-16 and 19 are allowable because of their dependence from one of claims 1 or 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 7/17/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claim 27.
Applicant argued that, since sealant 134 is included inside the glass core 120, the glass substrate do not provide hermetic sealing themselves.
Examiner disagrees because the glass substrate do provide the hermetic sealing, even with a solder sealant provided within the cavity.
Applicant argued that there is no indication that the sealing of MEMS die in the glass substrate is a vacuum seal, except for the teaching that cavity 132 provides a vacuum seal.
Examiner disagrees because the cavity that the MEMS die 130 is located within the glass core substrate 120 teaches that a vacuum seal is provided for cavity 132 which is included as part of the cavity that the MEMS die is located within.
Applicant argued that the MEMS die 130 is larger than the cavity 132 such that it would not be possible for the MEMS die to fit within the cavity.
Examiner disagrees because the cavity is provided within the glass core substrate 120 where the MEMS die 130 is clearly present in a cavity within and such cavity includes region 132.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2023/0307304 A1.
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 SHAUN M CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3830. The examiner can normally be reached on MWFS: 7:30-6pm Thurs 1-2pm.
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, Purvis, Sue can be reached at (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAUN M CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights