Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/496,656

HYBRID SUBSTRATES AND MANUFACTURING METHODS THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 27, 2023
Examiner
SUN, YU-HSI DAVID
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
648 granted / 845 resolved
+8.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
872
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 845 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 1-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US PG Pub 2013/0093097, hereinafter Yu). Regarding claim 1, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a substrate; and coupling a first circuit (174) to the substrate, the first circuit being characterized by a first coefficient of thermal expansion, the substrate being characterized by a second coefficient of thermal expansion (¶ 42), wherein forming the substrate comprises: providing a base layer (140), the base layer comprising a first side and a second side; coupling a first wafer (158) to the second side; forming a first via (148) in the base layer; depositing a first layer (162) on the first side, the first layer comprising a first dielectric material (¶ 48); forming a first wiring (164) in the first layer; depositing a second layer (166) on the first layer; and forming a first connection (176) in the second layer, the first circuit being coupled to the substrate via the first connection. Yu does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the first coefficient of thermal expansion to the second coefficient of thermal expansion is greater than or equal to 3:5. However, Yu discloses that the first circuit and substrate are formed of similar materials in order to minimize a CTE mismatch (¶ 42). Thus, it is obvious to form the device such that a ratio of the first CTE to the second CTE is close to 1:1 (which would meet the limitation “greater than or equal to 3:5”) for the purpose of minimizing the CTE mismatch). Furthermore, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the material and to be a result effective variable affecting the relative CTE ratios. Thus, it would have been obvious to choose materials that satisfy relative CTE ratios within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B Regarding claim 2, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the first connection (176) comprises a conductive pad. Regarding claim 3, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the first connection (176) comprises a metal bump. Regarding claim 4, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the substrate is characterized by a first thickness; the base layer (140) is characterized by a second thickness; and the second thickness is greater than 60% of the first thickness. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the base layer with a thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Regarding claim 5, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the base layer comprises a glass material, a ceramic material, a diamond material, or a silicon material (¶ 42). Regarding claim 6, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose depositing a third layer (144) on the substrate, the third layer being coupled to the first via (148). Regarding claim 7, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the third layer (144) comprises a titanium nitride material, a tungsten material, a silicon oxide material (¶ 43), or a copper material. Regarding claim 8, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the first dielectric material (of layer 162) comprises a polyimide material or a silicon nitride material (¶ 46, 48). Regarding claim 9, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the second layer (166) comprises a passivation material (¶ 46, 48). Regarding claim 10, figures 46-49A of Yu disclose coupling a second wafer (202) to the second layer (166); and detaching the first wafer (158) from the base layer. Regarding claim 11, figure 53 of Yu discloses a fourth layer (154) on the second side, the fourth layer comprising a second dielectric material (¶ 46). Regarding claim 12, figure 53 of Yu discloses the second dielectric material is different from the first dielectric material (¶ 46). Regarding claim 13, figure 53 of Yu discloses a second wiring (152) in the fourth layer, the second wiring comprising a metal material (¶ 46). Regarding claim 19, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: providing a base layer (140), the base layer comprising a first side and a second side; coupling a first wafer (158) to the second side; forming a first via (148) in the base layer; depositing a first layer (162) on the first side, the first layer comprising a first dielectric material (¶ 48); forming a first wiring (164) in the first layer; and depositing a second layer (166) on the first layer. Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paital et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0085411, hereinafter Paital). Regarding claim 14, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a substrate; and coupling a first circuit (174) to the substrate, the first circuit being characterized by a first coefficient of thermal expansion, the substrate being characterized by a second coefficient of thermal expansion (¶ 42), wherein forming the substrate comprises: providing a base layer (140), the base layer comprising a first side and a second side; coupling a first wafer (158) to the second side; forming a first via (148) in the base layer; depositing a first layer (162) on the first side, the first layer comprising a first dielectric material (¶ 48); forming a first wiring (164) in the first layer; depositing a second layer (166) on the first layer; and forming a first connection (176) in the second layer, the first circuit being coupled to the substrate via the first connection. Yu does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the first coefficient of thermal expansion to the second coefficient of thermal expansion is greater than or equal to 3:5. However, Yu discloses that the first circuit and substrate are formed of similar materials in order to minimize a CTE mismatch (¶ 42). Thus, it is obvious to form the device such that a ratio of the first CTE to the second CTE is close to 1:1 (which would meet the limitation “greater than or equal to 3:5”) for the purpose of minimizing the CTE mismatch). Furthermore, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the material and to be a result effective variable affecting the relative CTE ratios. Thus, it would have been obvious to choose materials that satisfy relative CTE ratios within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B Yu does not explicitly disclose forming a cavity in the base layer, the cavity being positioned on the first side; embedding a second circuit in the cavity. In the same field of endeavor, figures 4A-4J of Paital disclose forming a cavity (106) in a base layer (400), the cavity being positioned on a first side; and embedding a second circuit (108) in the cavity. In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form a cavity in the base layer, the cavity being positioned on the first side; and embed a second circuit in the cavity as taught by Mo for the purpose of reducing package dimensions and increasing device density (¶ 14). Regarding claim 15, Paital discloses the second circuit (108) comprises a memory, a thermal component, a mechanical component, an optical component, or an electrical component (¶ 67). Regarding claim 16, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the substrate is characterized by a first thickness; the base layer (140) is characterized by a second thickness; and the second thickness is greater than 60% of the first thickness. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the base layer with a thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Regarding claim 17, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the first layer (162) is characterized by a third thickness. Yu does not explicitly disclose the third thickness is less than or equal to 30 µm. However, it would have been obvious to form the first layer with a thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Regarding claim 18, figures 37-46 of Yu disclose the base layer (140) comprises a glass material, a ceramic material, a diamond material, or a silicon material (¶ 42). Regarding claim 20, Yu does not explicitly disclose embedding a circuit in the base layer (140). In the same field of endeavor, figures 4A-4J of Paital disclose embedding a second circuit (108) in a base layer (400). In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to embed a circuit in the base layer as taught by Mo for the purpose of reducing package dimensions and increasing device density (¶ 14). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-HSI DAVID SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm ET. 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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. /YU-HSI D SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604693
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING CHIPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598821
CHIP PACKAGE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593717
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581982
BONDING WIRE FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12582016
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 845 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month