Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/611,534

GLASS CORE PATCH WITH IN SITU FABRICATED FAN-OUT LAYER TO ENABLE DIE TILING APPLICATIONS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 20, 2024
Examiner
SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
651 granted / 914 resolved
+3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
987
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 914 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 12/04/2025. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 (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 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 1-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiner et al. 20190115319. PNG media_image1.png 575 1170 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, fig. 2O of Hiner (as labeled by examiner above) discloses an electronic package, comprising: a substrate 288, comprising: a first pad and a second pad on a first surface of the substrate without an intervening pad there between, wherein the first pad and the second pad have a first pitch (a top surface pitch); a third pad and a fourth pad on the first surface of the substrate without an intervening pad there between, wherein the third pad and the fourth pad have the first pitch (the top surface pitch); a fifth pad and a sixth pad on a second surface of the substrate without an intervening pad there between, wherein the second surface is opposite from the first surface, wherein the fifth pad and the sixth pad have a second pitch (a bottom surface pitch) that is greater than the first pitch, and wherein the fifth pad is electrically coupled to the first pad by a first single via, and the sixth pad is electrically coupled to the second pad by a second single via; a seventh pad and an eighth pad on the second surface of the substrate without an intervening pad there between, wherein the seventh pad and the eight pad have the second pitch (the bottom surface pitch), and wherein the seventh pad is electrically coupled to the third pad by a third single via, and the eighth pad is electrically coupled to the fourth pad by a fourth single via; PNG media_image2.png 441 823 media_image2.png Greyscale a bridge substrate above the substrate; a first die 201 electrically coupled to the first pad, the second pad, and the bridge substrate; and a second die 202 electrically coupled to the third pad, the fourth pad, and the bridge substrate, wherein the bridge substrate electrically couples the first die to the second die. Regard claim 2, fig. 2O of Hiner discloses wherein the bridge substrate is on an uppermost surface of the substrate. Regarding claims 3-4, fig. 2O of Hiner discloses further comprising: an underfill material 224 beneath the first die and beneath the second die; and wherein the underfill material is continuous between the first die and the second die. Regarding claim 5, fig. 2O of Hiner discloses further comprising: a mold material 225/226 adjacent to sides of the first die and the second die, and between the first die and the second die. Regarding claim 6, fig. 2O of Hiner discloses further comprising: an underfill material 224 beneath the first die and beneath the second die; and a mold material 226/225 around the underfill material, the first die and the second die. Regarding claim 8, fig. 2O of Hiner discloses wherein the fifth pad, the sixth pad, the seventh pad, and the eighth pad are part of a fan-out layer patterned directly into the second surface of the substrate. Regarding claim 10, fig. 2O of Hiner discloses wherein the bridge substrate is an active device (where current can flow). 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. Claims 11-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiner in view of Edwards 20060038272. Regarding claim 11 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Hiner discloses a system, comprising: an electronic package, the electronic package comprising: a substrate, comprising: a first pad and a second pad on a first surface of the substrate without an intervening pad there between, wherein the first pad and the second pad have a first pitch; a third pad and a fourth pad on the first surface of the substrate without an intervening pad there between, wherein the third pad and the fourth pad have the first pitch; a fifth pad and a sixth pad on a second surface of the substrate without an intervening pad there between, wherein the second surface [[that]] is opposite from the first surface, wherein the fifth pad and the sixth pad have a second pitch that is greater than the first pitch, and wherein the fifth pad is electrically coupled to the first pad by a first single via, and the sixth pad is electrically coupled to the second pad by a second single via; a seventh pad and an eighth pad on the second surface of the substrate, wherein the seventh pad and the eight pad have the second pitch, and wherein the seventh pad is electrically coupled to the third pad by a third single via, and the eighth pad is electrically coupled to the fourth pad by a fourth single via; a bridge substrate above the substrate; a first die electrically coupled to the first pad, the second pad, and the bridge substrate; and a second die electrically coupled to the third pad, the fourth pad, and the bridge substrate, wherein the bridge substrate electrically couples the first die to the second die. Hiner does not disclose of a board and the electronic package coupled to the board. PNG media_image3.png 270 671 media_image3.png Greyscale However, fig. 4a of Edwards discloses of a board 410 and the electronic package coupled to the board in order to connect the package to the board as bigger system. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a system of Hiner further comprising a board and the electronic package coupled to the board such as taught by Edwards in order to form a bigger system. Regarding claim 12, Hiner discloses wherein the bridge substrate is on an uppermost surface of the substrate. Regarding claim 13, Hiner discloses that the electronic package further comprising: an underfill material beneath the first die and beneath the second die. Regarding claim 14, Hiner discloses wherein the underfill material is continuous between the first die and the second die. Regarding claim 15, Hiner discloses that the electronic package further comprising: a mold material adjacent to sides of the first die and the second die, and between the first die and the second die. Regarding claim 16, Hiner discloses that the electronic package further comprising: an underfill material beneath the first die and beneath the second die; and a mold material around the underfill material, the first die and the second die. Regarding claim 18, Hiner discloses wherein the fifth pad, the sixth pad, the seventh pad, and the eighth pad are part of a fan-out layer patterned directly into the second surface of the substrate. Regarding claim 20, Hiner discloses wherein the bridge substrate is an active device. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiner in view of MOALLEM et al. 20200259240. Regarding claim 7, HIner discloses claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising: a solder resist between the bridge substrate and the first die, and between bridge substrate and the second die. However, fig. 1 and par [0027] of MOALLEM discloses package substrate 110 and 112 may include one or more dielectric layers 114-128 that provide physical support and isolation and a network of interconnecting conductors. Examples of dielectric layers include solder resist layers 114, 122, 124, and 128; intermediate dielectric layers 116 and 120; and core dielectric layers 118 and 126. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a structure of Hiner further comprising: a solder resist between the bridge substrate and the first die, and between bridge substrate and the second die in order to provide physical support and isolation and a network of interconnecting conductors such as taught by MOALLEM. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of MOALLEM et al. 20200259240. Regarding claim 17, Hiner and Edwards disclose claim 11, but do not disclose further comprising: a solder resist between the bridge substrate and the first die, and between bridge substrate and the second die. However, fig. 1 and par [0027] of MOALLEM discloses package substrate 110 and 112 may include one or more dielectric layers 114-128 that provide physical support and isolation and a network of interconnecting conductors. Examples of dielectric layers include solder resist layers 114, 122, 124, and 128; intermediate dielectric layers 116 and 120; and core dielectric layers 118 and 126. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a structure of Hiner and Edwards further comprising: a solder resist between the bridge substrate and the first die, and between bridge substrate and the second die in order to provide physical support and isolation and a network of interconnecting conductors such as taught by MOALLEM. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiner in view of Kobayashi et al. 20070200211 (Kobayashi). Regarding claim 8, Hiner discloses claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first pitch is less than 100 μm and the second pitch is greater than 100 μm. However, par [0013] The wiring pitch for maintaining the via forming portion in the connection between the layers in the multilayer wiring substrate will be described with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4. In a method of setting a width of the wiring 24, a wiring interval and a diameter of the via pad portion 25 to be 20 .mu.m, 20 .mu.m and 100 .mu.m respectively and arranging a large number of via pad portions 25 shown in FIG. 3 in parallel as in the related-art method as connecting conditions for the wiring 24 and the via pad portion 25, it is necessary to set a pitch of the via pad portion 25 to be 120 .mu.m in order to carry out a connection through the via under the existing circumstances. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a structure of Hiner comprising wherein the first pitch is less than 100 μm and the second pitch is greater than 100 μm such as taught by Kobayashi in order to carry out a connection through the via of desired dimensions. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiner and Edward and Kobayashi. Regarding claim 19, Hiner discloses claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the first pitch is less than 100 μm and the second pitch is greater than 100 μm. However, par [0013] The wiring pitch for maintaining the via forming portion in the connection between the layers in the multilayer wiring substrate will be described with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4. In a method of setting a width of the wiring 24, a wiring interval and a diameter of the via pad portion 25 to be 20 .mu.m, 20 .mu.m and 100 .mu.m respectively and arranging a large number of via pad portions 25 shown in FIG. 3 in parallel as in the related-art method as connecting conditions for the wiring 24 and the via pad portion 25, it is necessary to set a pitch of the via pad portion 25 to be 120 .mu.m in order to carry out a connection through the via under the existing circumstances. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a structure of Hiner and Edwards comprising wherein the first pitch is less than 100 μm and the second pitch is greater than 100 μm such as taught by Kobayashi in order to carry out a connection through the via of desired dimensions. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST. 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 A. Sue can be reached on (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 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. /VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 25, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604622
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598804
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598779
Gate-All-Around Device with Protective Dielectric Layer and Method of Forming the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588424
NONVOLATILE MEMORY ELEMENT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581835
DISPLAY PANEL
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 914 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