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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 5, 2025 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 14 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 8 recites the Markush Group “wherein the first metallization structure comprises: fiberglass impregnated with resin (prepreg), Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF), or a resin coated copper (RCC) build-up film,” on page 2 lines 1-3 and the Markush Group “wherein the second metallization structure comprises fiberglass impregnated with resin (prepreg), Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF), or a resin coated copper (RCC) build-up film,” on page 2 lines 4-6. The Markush Groups render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what elements are included in the Markush Groups. The examiner first notes that, “Although the term "Markush claim" is used throughout the MPEP, any claim that recites alternatively usable members, regardless of format, should be treated as a Markush claim.” See MPEP § 2117 I. The examiner next notes that the Markush Group is introduced by an open-ended transitional phrase, “comprising,” and thus, the Markush Group includes additional unrecited elements. The examiner now notes that “If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group ‘comprising’ or ‘consisting essentially of’ the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h) I.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name AJINOMOTO BUILD-UP FILM®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of insulating material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 14 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “wherein the apparatus comprises at least one of: a music player; a video player; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a mobile device; a mobile phone; a smartphone; a personal digital assistant; a fixed location terminal; a tablet computer; a computer; a wearable device; a laptop computer; a server; an internet of things (IoT) device; or an automotive vehicle device,” on page 2 lines 28-33 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the members are not considered to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. For example, a wearable device and a fixed location terminal are not considered to be functionally equivalent and have a common use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Additionally, the Markush Group renders the claim indefinite because the Markush Group recites genus and species of the genus in the same group. For example, the Markush Group recites a mobile device and then recites a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a tablet computer, a wearable device, and a laptop computer which are species of a mobile device.
Further, the Markush Group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the apparatus can be more than one of the listed devices. For example, it is unclear how the apparatus can be a wearable device and a fixed location terminal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kambe et al. (US 6,979,890).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kambe discloses an apparatus, comprising a package substrate, the package substrate comprising:
a substrate (core main body with ceramic sub-core bonded to the core main body, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 100m, col. 6 lines 9-24 and col. 8 lines 31-40) including a copper clad laminate (CCL) core (core main body formed of glass fiber reinforced epoxy resin, See fig. 3, ref. no. 100m, col. 6 lines 9-24, and 43-47. The examiner notes the Kambe discloses surface conductors formed of Cu on the top and bottom surface of the core main body. See col. 8 lines 54-67 and col. 9 lines 1-25) and a glass block (ceramic sub-core formed of borosilicate glass, See fig. 3, ref. no. 1, col. 6 lines 9-24, 48-51) at least partially embedded in the CCL core;
a first metallization structure (first wiring laminated section, See fig. 3, ref. no. 61, col. 8 lines 54-64) including a plurality of first dielectric layers (dielectric layers on the top surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 100m, 102, col. 8 lines 54-67, col. 9 lines 1-4, and 13-25); a plurality of first metal layers (surface conductors and signal wiring on the top surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 108, 110, col. 8 lines 54-64, col. 9 lines 13-25, col. 10 lines 10-20, and 50-56); and a plurality of first vias (vias connected to surface conductors and signal wiring on the top surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 107, col. 9 lines 26-43, 60-67, and col. 10 lines 1-5) configured to couple adjacent metal layers of the plurality of first metal layers through the plurality of first dielectric layers; and
a second metallization structure (second wiring laminated section, See fig. 3, ref. no. 62, col. 9 lines 5-25) comprising a plurality of second dielectric layers (dielectric layers on the bottom surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 100m, 102 and col. 9 lines 5-25), a plurality of second metal layers (surface conductors on the bottom surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 211a, 211b, and col. 9 lines 43-52) and a plurality of second vias (vias connect to surface conductors on the bottom surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 107, col. 9 lines 43-51, 60-67, and col. 10 lines 1-5),
wherein the second metallization structure is disposed on a second side of the substrate opposite the first metallization structure disposed on a first side of the substrate (the second wiring laminated section is disposed on the bottom surface of the core main body with the ceramic sub-core and the first wiring laminated section is disposed on the top surface of the core main body with the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 61, 62, and 100m).
Regarding Claim 3:
Kambe discloses wherein the CCL core and the glass block have a same thickness (the core main body and the ceramic sub-core having matching thickness, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 100m, and col. 6 lines 9-24).
Regarding Claim 6:
Kambe discloses where a first metal layer of the first metallization layer is disposed on the CCL core (surface conductors and conductor pads are disposed on the surface of the core main body, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 100m, 110, col. 8 lines 54-62 and col. 10 lines 39-50).
Regarding Claim 9:
Kambe discloses wherein the substrate comprises: at least one plated through hole (PTH) (Cu plated through-holes formed in the core main body, See fig. 3, ref. no. 109s and col. 10 lines 15-20 and 39-56) disposed through the CCL core configured to provide an electrical connection to opposite sides of the CCL core, at least one through glass via (TGV) (sub-core conductors formed though the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 51a, 51b, col. 9 lines 26-52) disposed through the glass block or a combination of both.
Regarding Claim 10:
Kambe discloses wherein the at least one PTH disposed through the CCL core is coupled to a first metal layer disposed on the CCL core (the Cu plated through-holes are coupled to conductor pads on the surface of the main core body, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 109s, 110, and col. 10 lines 15-20 and 47-50. The examiner notes the conductor pads 110 are on the surface of the core main body and thus are in a first metal layer.), or the at least one TGV disposed through the glass block extends to and is coupled to a second metal layer not in contact with the glass block, or a combination of both.
Regarding Claim 11:
Kambe discloses a die (semiconductor integrated circuit device, See figs. 1, 3, ref. no. 2, col. 5 lines 53-66) disposed on and electrically coupled to the package substrate (the semiconductor integrated circuit device is disposed on the intermediate substrate and is electrically connected to the intermediate substrate through solder junctions, See figs. 1, 3, ref. nos. 2, 6, 200, and col. 5 lines 53-66).
Regarding Claim 12:
Kambe discloses wherein the glass block is a same size or larger than the die and is disposed under the die (the ceramic sub-core is larger than the semiconductor integrated circuit device and is disposed under the semiconductor integrated circuit device, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 2, col. 6 lines 25-47, and col. 13 lines 41-46).
Regarding Claim 15:
Kambe discloses a method of manufacturing an apparatus comprising a package substrate, the method comprising:
forming a substrate (bonding the ceramic sub-core to the core main body to form core main body with ceramic sub-core bonded to the core main body, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 55, 100m. col. 6 lines 9-24 and col. 8 lines 31-40) including at least partially embedding a glass block (ceramic sub-core formed of borosilicate glass, See fig. 3, ref. no. 1, col. 6 lines 9-24, 48-51) in a copper clad laminate (CCL) core (core main body formed of glass fiber reinforced epoxy resin, See fig. 3, ref. no. 100m, col. 6 lines 9-24, and 43-47. The examiner notes the Kambe discloses surface conductors formed of Cu on the top and bottom surface of the core main body. See col. 8 lines 54-67 and col. 9 lines 1-25);
forming a first metallization structure (forming the dielectric layers, surface conductors, signal wiring, and via conductors on the top surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 61, 102, 107, 108, 110, col. 8 lines 54-67, col. 9 lines 13-25, 60-67, col. 10 lines 1-5) including a plurality of first dielectric layers (dielectric layers on the top surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 100m, 102, col. 8 lines 54-67, col. 9 lines 1-4, and 13-25); a plurality of first metal layers (surface conductors and signal wiring on the top surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 108, 110, col. 8 lines 54-67, col. 9 lines 1-4, 13-25, col. 10 lines 10-20, and 50-56); and a plurality of first vias (vias connected to surface conductors and signal wiring on the top surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 107, col. 9 lines 26-43, 60-67, and col. 10 lines 1-5) configured to couple adjacent metal layers of the plurality of first metal layers through the plurality of first dielectric layers; and
forming a second metallization structure (forming the dielectric layers, surface conductors, and via conductors on the bottom surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 62, 102, 107, 110, 211a, 211b, col. 9 lines 5-25, 43-52, 60-67, col. 10 lines 1-5) comprising a plurality of second dielectric layers (dielectric layers on the bottom surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 100m, 102 and col. 9 lines 5-25), a plurality of second metal layers (surface conductors on the bottom surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 211a, 211b, col. 9 lines 43-52, and col. 10 lines 50-56) and a plurality of second vias configured to couple adjacent metal layers of the plurality of second metal layers through the plurality of second dielectric layers (vias connected to surface conductors on the bottom surfaces of the core main body and the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. no. 107, col. 9 lines 43-51, 60-67, and col. 10 lines 1-5),
wherein the second metallization structure is disposed on a second side of the substrate opposite the first metallization structure disposed on a first side of the substrate (the second wiring laminated section is disposed on the bottom surface of the core main body with the ceramic sub-core and the first wiring laminated section is disposed on the top surface of the core main body with the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 61, 62, and 100m).
Regarding Claim 16:
Kambe discloses wherein forming the substrate comprises: forming at least one plated through hole (PTH) disposed through the CCL core (forming Cu plated through-holes formed in the core main body, See fig. 3, ref. no. 109s and col. 10 lines 39-56), forming at least one through glass via (TGV) disposed through the glass block (forming sub-core conductors formed though the ceramic sub-core, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 51a, 51b, col. 9 lines 53-59) or a combination of both.
Regarding Claim 17:
Kambe discloses wherein the at least one PTH disposed through the CCL core is coupled to a first metal layer disposed on the CCL core (the Cu plated through-holes are coupled to conductor pads on the surface of the main core body, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 109s, 110, and col. 10 lines 15-20 and 47-50. The examiner notes the conductor pads 110 are on the surface of the core main body and thus are in a first metal layer.) , or the at least one TGV disposed through the glass block is coupled to a second metal layer not in contact with the glass block, or a combination of both.
Regarding Claim 18:
Kambe discloses wherein forming the at least one through glass via (TGV) disposed through the glass block comprises: depositing a first dielectric layer on the first side of the glass block; depositing a second dielectric layer on the second side of the glass block; and drilling through the first dielectric layer, glass block, and the second dielectric layer (The examiner notes that the limitations recited in claim 18 further define one of the steps recited in the alternative in claim 16, thus, a reference that teaches either of the steps will read on claim 18. In the present case, Kambe discloses forming at least one plated through hole (PTH) disposed through the CCL core, as discussed above with respect to claim 16. Therefore, Kambe reads on claim 18 as well.)
Regarding Claim 19:
Kambe discloses electrically coupling a die to the package substrate (soldering a semiconductor integrated circuit device to the intermediate substrate, See figs. 1, 3, ref. nos. 2, 6, 200 and col. 5 lines 60-66) wherein the die is disposed on the package substrate (the semiconductor integrated circuit device is disposed on the intermediate substate, See figs. 1, 3, ref. nos. 2, 200) and wherein the glass block is disposed under the die and is a same size or larger than the die (the ceramic sub-core is larger than the semiconductor integrated circuit device and is disposed under the semiconductor integrated circuit device, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 2, col. 6 lines 25-47, and col. 13 lines 41-46).
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 2, 8, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe et al. (US 6,979,890) in view of Lee (US 2022/0310563).
Regarding Claim 2:
Kambe discloses the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate.
Kambe does not disclose wherein the substrate further comprises a plurality of glass blocks and the glass block is one of the plurality of glass blocks.
Lee discloses a hybrid core having four rectangular glass carrier quarter plates, (See fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 120, paragraphs 118-119 and 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe to include forming the ceramic sub-core in four rectangular quarter cores as taught by Lee in order to counteract the tendency of glass to break because a smaller size glass core counteracts the tendency of glass to break. (See Lee paragraph 68).
Regarding Claim 8:
Kambe discloses the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate.
Kambe does not disclose wherein the first metallization structure comprises: fiberglass impregnated with resin (prepreg), Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF), or a resin coated copper (RCC) build-up film, and wherein the second metallization structure comprises fiberglass impregnated with resin (prepreg), Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF), or a resin coated copper (RCC) build-up film.
Lee discloses an epoxy based build film layer structure such as Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF) layer structure or prepeg layer structure (See paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe to include wherein the first metallization structure comprises fiberglass impregnated with resin (prepreg), Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF) as taught by Lee for ease of manufacturing the apparatus comprising a package substrate by using known dielectric materials.
The above stated combination of Kambe and Lee does not disclose wherein the second metallization structure comprises fiberglass impregnated with resin (prepreg), Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF), or a resin coated copper (RCC) build-up film.
Lee discloses an epoxy based build film layer structure such as Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF) layer structure or prepeg layer structure (See paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe and Lee to include wherein the second metallization structure comprises fiberglass impregnated with resin (prepreg) Ajinomoto build-up film (ABF) as taught by Lee for ease of manufacturing the apparatus comprising a package substrate by using known dielectric materials.
Regarding Claim 13:
Kambe discloses the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate.
Kambe does not disclose wherein the glass block is part of an arrangement of a plurality of glass blocks and the arrangement is a same size or larger than the die and the arrangement is disposed under the die.
Lee discloses a hybrid core having four rectangular glass carrier quarter plates, (See fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 120, paragraphs 118-119 and 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe to include forming the ceramic sub-core in four rectangular quarter sub-cores as taught by Lee in order to counteract the tendency of glass to break because a smaller size glass core counteracts the tendency of glass to break. (See Lee paragraph 68).
The examiner notes that the four rectangular quarter sub-cores are a same size or larger than the semiconductor integrated circuit device and are disposed under the semiconductor integrated circuit device because the single ceramic sub-core was a same size or larger than the semiconductor integrated circuit device and is disposed under the semiconductor integrated circuit device. (See Kambe fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 2, col. 6 lines 25-47, and col. 13 lines 41-46.)
Regarding Claim 20:
Kambe discloses the above stated method of manufacturing an apparatus comprising a package substrate. Kambe further discloses electrically coupling a die to the package substrate (soldering a semiconductor integrated circuit device to the intermediate substrate, See figs. 1, 3, ref. nos. 2, 6, 200 and col. 5 lines 60-66) wherein the die is disposed on the package substrate (the semiconductor integrated circuit device is disposed on the intermediate substate, See figs. 1, 3, ref. nos. 2, 200).
Kambe does not disclose wherein the glass block is part of an arrangement of a plurality of glass blocks and the arrangement is a same size or larger than the die, and wherein the arrangement is disposed under the die.
Lee discloses a hybrid core having four rectangular glass carrier quarter plates, (See fig. 3, ref. nos. 110, 120, paragraphs 118-119 and 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe to include forming the ceramic sub-core in four rectangular quarter sub-cores as taught by Lee in order to counteract the tendency of glass to break because a smaller size glass core counteracts the tendency of glass to break. (See Lee paragraph 68).
The examiner notes that the four rectangular quarter sub-cores are a same size or larger than the semiconductor integrated circuit device and are disposed under the semiconductor integrated circuit device because the single ceramic sub-core was a same size or larger than the semiconductor integrated circuit device and is disposed under the semiconductor integrated circuit device. (See Kambe fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 2, col. 6 lines 25-47, and col 13 lines 41-46.)
Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe et al. (US 6,979,890) in view of Lerenthal (US 2014/0192493).
Regarding Claim 4:
Kambe discloses the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate.
Kambe does not disclose wherein the substrate has a thickness in a range of 40 micrometers (um) to 800 (um).
Lerenthal discloses a printed circuit board having a thickness of 0.3mm (See fig. 2D and paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe to include the substrate having a thickness of 0.3mm as taught by Lerenthal in order to increase the commercial marketplace for package substrate by sizing the package substrate for use in smartphone.
Regarding Claim 5:
Kambe discloses the glass block is enclosed within a perimeter of the CCL core (the ceramic sub-core is located in a sub-core compartment in the core main body, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 1, 100m, 100h and col. 6 lines 9-24).
Regarding Claim 14:
Kambe discloses the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate.
Kambe does not disclose wherein the apparatus comprises at least one of: a music player; a video player; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a mobile device; a mobile phone; a smartphone; a personal digital assistant; a fixed location terminal; a tablet computer; a computer; a wearable device; a laptop computer; a server; an internet of things (IoT) device; or an automotive vehicle device.
Lerenthal discloses wherein the apparatus comprises at least one of: a music player; a video player; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a mobile device; a mobile phone; a smartphone (smartphone including a printed circuit board, See figs. 2A-2E and paragraph 47. The examiner notes that a smartphone also reads on a music player, a video player, an entertainment unit, a navigation device, a communications device, a mobile device, a mobile phone, a personal digital assistant, a tablet computer, a computer, and a wearable device.); a personal digital assistant; a fixed location terminal; a tablet computer; a computer; a wearable device; a laptop computer; a server; an internet of things (IoT) device; or an automotive vehicle device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe to include the package substrate in a smartphone as taught by Lerenthal in order to increase the commercial marketplace for package substrate by using the package substrate in smartphone.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe et al. (US 6,979,890) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2025/0194004).
Regarding Claim 7:
Kambe discloses the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate.
Kambe does not disclose wherein the first metal layer of the first metallization layer is not disposed on the glass block.
Hwang discloses through glass vias that extend beyond a glass layer and are soldered to semiconductor chips (See fig. 3B, ref. nos. 110, 130, 301, 302, 400, paragraphs 31 and 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe include through glass via that extend beyond the first wiring laminated section and solder the semiconductor integrated circuit device to through glass vias that extend beyond the first wiring laminated section as taught by Hwang in order to improve the electrical connection between the through glass vias and the semiconductor integrated circuit device by reducing the number of contact interfaces between the through glass vias and the semiconductor integrated circuit.
The examiner notes that the first metal layer of the first metallization layer is not disposed on the glass block in the combination of Kambe and Hwang because the semiconductor integrated circuit device is soldered to the through glass via as shown in figure 3B of Hwang.
Regarding Claim 10:
Kambe discloses the above stated apparatus comprising a package substrate. Kambe further discloses the first wiring laminated section has a second metal layer (the surface conductors and the signal wiring on the bottom dielectric layer, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 102, 108, and col. 8 lines 54-64).
Kambe does not disclose wherein the at least one TGV disposed through the glass block extends to and is coupled to a second metal layer not in contact with the glass block, or a combination of both.
Hwang discloses through glass vias that extend beyond a glass layer (See fig. 3B, ref. nos. 110, 130, 301, 302, 400, paragraphs 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe include through glass vias that extend beyond the first wiring laminated section and coupling the through glass vias to the second metal layer in the first wiring laminated section as taught by Hwang in order to improve the electrical connection between the through glass vias and the semiconductor integrated circuit device by reducing the number of contact interfaces between the through glass vias and the semiconductor integrated circuit device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe et al. (US 6,979,890) in view of Yugawa (JP 2004063927 A). The examiner notes that the citations to paragraphs of Yugawa refer to paragraphs in the attached English language translation.
Regarding Claim 18:
Kambe discloses the above stated method of manufacturing an apparatus comprising a package substrate.
Kambe does not disclose wherein forming the at least one through glass via (TGV) disposed through the glass block comprises: depositing a first dielectric layer on the first side of the glass block; depositing a second dielectric layer on the second side of the glass block; and drilling through the first dielectric layer, glass block, and the second dielectric layer.
Yugawa discloses depositing a first dielectric layer on the first side of the glass block (attaching resin layer to an upper surface of an insulating resin plate, See fig. 2B, ref. nos. 1, 3A and paragraph 13. The examiner notes that the insulating resin plate is made of glass cloth. See paragraph 13); depositing a second dielectric layer on the second side of the glass block (attaching resin layer to a lower surface of an insulating resin plate, See fig. 2B, ref. nos. 1, 3A and paragraph 13. The examiner notes that the insulating resin plate is made of glass cloth. See paragraph 13); and drilling through the first dielectric layer, glass block, and the second dielectric layer (drilling through the resin layer on the upper surface of the insulating resin plate, the insulating resin plate, and the resin layer on the lower surface of the insulating resin plate, See fig. 2C, ref. nos. 1, 3A, 3B, 4, and paragraphs 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing an apparatus comprising a package substrate of Kambe include depositing a first dielectric layer on the first side of the glass block; depositing a second dielectric layer on the second side of the glass block; and drilling through the first dielectric layer, glass block, and the second dielectric layer as taught by Yugawa in order to improve the electrical connection between the through glass vias and the semiconductor integrated circuit device by reducing the number of contact interfaces between the through glass vias and the semiconductor integrated circuit device. (The examiner notes that ends of the through conductors formed in the through holes of Yugawa are located on the second metal layer, thus, the number of contact interfaces between the through glass vias and the semiconductor integrated circuit device will be reduced. See Yugawa figs. 1, 2f, ref. nos. 4, 5)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT SQUIRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights