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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/26/2024, 8/4/2025, and 5/29/2026 are 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 7 and 22 (and dependent claims 23-24 dependent therefrom) 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 7 recites the limitation “the integrated circuit substrate” in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 7 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the integrated circuit substrate” is equivalent to “the organic integrated circuit substrate” based on claim 1. This interpretation is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the carrier body” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 22 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the carrier body” is equivalent to “the inorganic carrier body” based on line 2. This interpretation is to be confirmed by applicant in the next office action.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (or combination of references), but are disclosed or rendered obvious by secondary references or remarks.
Claims 1-7, 14, 16, 18-19, 22-25, 27-29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20160302308 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a package (Fig. 3, an intermediate assembly), comprising:
an inorganic carrier body (See annotated figure; [0049]: “a general core board”) having a cavity (101);
an organic integrated circuit substrate (10; [0066]: “insulating resin”; [0143]: “insulating resin”) embedded in the cavity of the inorganic carrier body; and
a redistribution structure (43/113/139 with 240/130/240) formed partially on (at least indirectly “on”) and/or above (See annotated figure for direction designation) the inorganic carrier body and partially on (at least indirectly “on”) and/or in the organic integrated circuit substrate (the redistribution structure includes 43/240 which are components of substrate 10).
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 3 of Lee.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to teach material composition of the carrier body. Thus, Lee fails to teach “an inorganic carrier body”.
Pietambaram discloses a carrier body (Fig. 1A: 104) may be formed from a finite selection of known suitable materials, and these materials include an inorganic carrier body ([0072]: “glass”). Modifying the carrier body of Lee by incorporating the material composition of Pietambaram would arrive at the claimed inorganic carrier body configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the carrier body is performing the same function as a core (Lee: [0049]: “a general core board”; Pietambaram: [0072]: “core”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed inorganic carrier body configuration because it is incorporating a material composition known useful in the same situation. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Illustrated below is Fig. 1A of Pietambaram.
PNG
media_image2.png
288
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), wherein part of the redistribution structure (43 and 240) extends into the cavity (43 and 240 are within cavity 101).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), wherein at least one layer structure (43) of the redistribution structure is formed only on and/or in the organic integrated circuit substrate without extending to the inorganic carrier body (layer 43 is exclusive to substrate 10).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), wherein at least one layer structure (139) of the redistribution structure is formed on (at least indirectly “on”) and/or above (See annotated figure for direction designation) the inorganic carrier body and on (at least indirectly “on”) and/or above (See annotated figure for direction designation) the organic integrated circuit substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), wherein at least one layer structure (43) of the redistribution structure is formed as integral part of the organic integrated circuit substrate (layer 43 is integral to substrate 10).
Regarding claim 7 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), comprising at least one of the following features (Note: one feature is cited below, thus meeting the claim):
wherein an exterior surface of the redistribution structure is substantially planar (See dashed reference line for “substantially planar shape”);
wherein an interior surface of the redistribution structure is profiled;
wherein the inorganic carrier body comprises at least one of glass, ceramic, metal, high stiff functional materials, and organic carriers, including carbon composite and/or aramid composite;
wherein the inorganic carrier body consists only of glass;
wherein at least one main surface of the organic integrated circuit substrate comprises electrically conductive connection bumps but no wiring lines;
the package comprises one of the following features: wherein the inorganic carrier body is free of interior electrically conductive connection structures; comprising at least one electrically conductive connection structure in an interior of the inorganic carrier body;
wherein a surface roughness Ra of the inorganic carrier body is not more than 100 nm,
wherein the organic integrated circuit substrate comprises a laminated layer stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure;
the package comprises an electronic component mounted on the redistribution structure;
wherein the organic integrated circuit substrate is configured for providing a voltage regulation function, a heat management function, a power supply function, a high-frequency application function, a signal processing function and/or an amplifier function;
wherein the organic integrated circuit substrate is embedded in the cavity of the inorganic carrier body so as to suppress warpage and/or enhance mechanical stability of the organic integrated circuit substrate;
the package comprises at least one capacitor formed on the inorganic carrier body and/or embedded in the organic integrated circuit substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), further comprising layer build-up (125) on (at least indirectly “on”) a side (under side, See annotated figure for direction designation) of the inorganic carrier body and of the organic integrated circuit substrate which opposes the redistribution structure (vertically opposes, See annotated figure for direction designation), wherein the layer build-up and the redistribution structure are asymmetric (there are different numbers of layers for these structures, thus vertically asymmetric).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 14 (Lee: Fig. 3), wherein the redistribution structure has a higher integration density than the layer build-up (there are different numbers of layers for these structures, thus “the redistribution structure has a higher integration density” because of these additional layers).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), further comprising a dielectric filling medium (160; [0067]: “interlayer insulating material”) covering (directly “covering”) at least part of at least one vertical sidewall (See annotated figure for sidewall designations) and/or at least part of at least one horizontal wall of the inorganic carrier body and/or of the organic integrated circuit substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 18 (Lee: Fig. 3), wherein the dielectric filling medium spatially separates the inorganic carrier body with respect to the redistribution structure (160 separates the carrier body from at least 43/240).
Regarding claim 22 as noted in the 112(b) rejection, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), but the combination as applied only cites a single cavity and circuit substrate, and thus fails to teach
“wherein the inorganic carrier body has a further cavity;
comprising a further organic integrated circuit substrate embedded in the further cavity of the inorganic carrier body; and
wherein the redistribution structure is formed partially on and/or in the further organic integrated circuit substrate.”
Pietambaram discloses a package (Fig. 1A) with an inorganic carrier body (104, as cited above for claim 1) and a cavity (112(1)) with a circuit substrate (114(1)),
wherein the inorganic carrier body has a further cavity (112(2));
comprising a further organic integrated circuit substrate (114(2)) embedded in the further cavity of the inorganic carrier body
Modifying the package of Lee in view of Pietambaram by incorporating a duplicated cavity and organic integrated circuit substrate in the same way disclosed by Pietambaram would arrive at the claimed package configuration
wherein the inorganic carrier body has a further cavity (duplicated Lee: Fig. 3: 101);
comprising a further organic integrated circuit substrate (duplicated Lee: Fig. 3: 10) embedded in the further cavity of the inorganic carrier body; and
wherein the redistribution structure (Lee: Fig. 3: the same redistribution structure as in claim 1, applied in the same way to these duplicated structures) is formed partially on and/or in the further organic integrated circuit substrate.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the circuit substrate is performing at least the same function to interconnect electronic components (Lee: [0109]: “connecting…electronic components…to each other”; Pietambaram: [0077]: “a bridge die”). Pietambaram teaches a design incentive to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the duplication of parts in that the circuit substrates are designed and chosen according to required interconnection and function of the package ([0077]: “different types of IC die…depending on desired functionalities, performance, cost and manufacturing considerations”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed duplication of parts because it is a duplication encompassed within the prior art according to design requirement. MPEP 2143 (I)(F); MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 22 (Lee: Fig. 6), further comprising:
an electronic component (Fig. 6: 501; [0101]: “electronic components”) mounted on the redistribution structure (mounted on the Fig. 3 embodiment in the same way as with the Fig. 6/Fig. 1 embodiment) above the organic integrated circuit substrate (above, without requiring any specific overlap in any particular direction); and
a further electronic component (502; [0101]: “electronic components”) mounted on the redistribution structure (mounted on the Fig. 3 embodiment in the same way as with the Fig. 6/Fig. 1 embodiment) above the further organic integrated circuit substrate (above, without requiring any specific overlap in any particular direction).
Illustrated below is Fig. 6 of Lee.
PNG
media_image3.png
192
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 22 (Pietambaram: Fig. 1A), wherein the organic integrated circuit substrate and the further organic integrated circuit substrate are configured for providing different functions ([0077]: “different types of IC die 114”).
Regarding claim 25, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3, an intermediate assembly), further comprising an electronic component (Fig. 6: 501; [0101]: “electronic components”) and a further electronic component (502; [0101]: “electronic components”) mounted on the redistribution structure (mounted on the Fig. 3 embodiment in the same way as with the Fig. 6/Fig. 1 embodiment) which is configured as a bridge ([0109]: “connecting…electronic components…to each other”) between the electronic component and the further electronic component.
Regarding claim 27, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), but the combination as applied fails to teach “further comprising an optical communication path extending through the inorganic carrier body”.
Pietambaram discloses a package further comprising an optical communication path (Fig. 1A: path 106) extending through the inorganic carrier body (body 104). Modifying the inorganic carrier body of Lee in view of Pietambaram by including the optical communication path of Pietambaram would arrive at the claimed carrier body configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the carrier body is performing the same function as a core (Lee: [0049]: “a general core board”; Pietambaram: [0072]: “core”). Pietambaram provides a teaching to motivate one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include the optical communication path in that it would enable improved cost, size, and performance when connecting with external systems ([0076]: “can enable simpler, faster, more compact, low-cost, compatible assembly, and in some cases, more reliable connections with optoelectronic systems”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed optical communication path because it would enable improved connections with external systems. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 28, Lee discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein the redistribution structure has a first region with a first pitch and a second region with a second pitch, the second pitch being different than the first pitch;
wherein the redistribution structure has a pitch on and/or above the inorganic carrier body differing from another pitch on and/or in the organic integrated circuit substrate ([0054]: “a pitch smaller than that of the circuit layers of the circuit board”).
Regarding claim 29, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 3), wherein at least part of the inorganic carrier body is coated (indirectly “coated”) with a functional coating (150, performing the function of a solder mask; [0068]: “solder resist layers”).
Note that claim 1 was previously addressed above, however, it’s being addressed differently here based on the reading of the reference, particularly to the cited embodiment in order to address the dependent claim 3.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a package (Fig. 2, an intermediate assembly), comprising:
an inorganic carrier body (See annotated figure; [0049]: “a general core board”) having a cavity (101);
an organic integrated circuit substrate (10; [0066]: “insulating resin”; [0143]: “insulating resin”) embedded in the cavity of the inorganic carrier body; and
a redistribution structure (115 with 10A) formed partially on (at least indirectly “on”) and/or above the inorganic carrier body and partially on and/or in the organic integrated circuit substrate.
Illustrated below is a marked and annotated figure of Fig. 2 of Lee.
PNG
media_image4.png
235
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to teach material composition of the carrier body. Thus, Lee fails to teach “an inorganic carrier body”.
Pietambaram discloses a carrier body (Fig. 1A: 104) may be formed from a finite selection of known suitable materials, and these materials include an inorganic carrier body ([0072]: “glass”). Modifying the carrier body of Lee by incorporating the material composition of Pietambaram would arrive at the claimed inorganic carrier body configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the carrier body is performing the same function as a core (Lee: [0049]: “a general core board”; Pietambaram: [0072]: “core”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed inorganic carrier body configuration because it is incorporating a material composition known useful in the same situation. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 1 (Lee: Fig. 2), wherein the redistribution structure has a larger (“larger” because it extends outside of the dashed reference lines) vertical extension on and/or in the organic integrated circuit substrate (See annotated figure for vertical extension designation) than on and/or above the inorganic carrier body (See annotated figure for vertical extension designation).
Regarding independent claim 32, Lee discloses a method of manufacturing a package (Fig. 3), the method comprising:
providing an inorganic carrier body (See annotated figure; [0049]: “a general core board”) having a cavity (101);
embedding an organic integrated circuit substrate (10; [0066]: “insulating resin”; [0143]: “insulating resin”) in the cavity of the inorganic carrier body; and
forming a redistribution structure (43/113/139 with 240/130/240) partially on (at least indirectly “on”) and/or above (See annotated figure for direction designation) the inorganic carrier body and partially on (at least indirectly “on”) and/or in the organic integrated circuit substrate (the redistribution structure includes 43/240 which are components of substrate 10).
Lee fails to teach material composition of the carrier body. Thus, Lee fails to teach the method having “an inorganic carrier body”.
Pietambaram discloses a method with a carrier body (Fig. 1A: 104) may be formed from a finite selection of known suitable materials, and these materials include an inorganic carrier body ([0072]: “glass”). Modifying the carrier body in the method of Lee by incorporating the material composition of Pietambaram would arrive at the claimed method and inorganic carrier body configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the carrier body is performing the same function as a core (Lee: [0049]: “a general core board”; Pietambaram: [0072]: “core”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed method and inorganic carrier body configuration because it is incorporating a material composition known useful in the same situation. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pietambaram as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20230061932 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Pietambaram discloses the package according to claim 18, but fails to teach specific characteristics of the dielectric filling medium. Thus, Lee in view of Pietambaram fails to teach “wherein the dielectric filling medium comprises a dielectric having a value of the Young modulus of not more than 5 GPa”.
Wang discloses wherein the dielectric filling medium (Fig. 1D: 162) comprises a dielectric ([0058]: “epoxy glue, silicon glue, resin, rubber, poly ethylene (PE), polyimide” includes a plurality of known dielectrics) having a value of the Young modulus of not more than 5 GPa ([0056]: “about 0.2 GPa to about 6 GPa” substantially overlaps the claimed range). Modifying the dielectric filling medium of Lee in view of Pietambaram by including a medium disclosed by Wang would arrive at the claimed Young’s modulus configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation a resinous medium (Lee: medium 160, [0067]: “resin”; Wang: medium 162, [0058]: “resin”) is filling a cavity (Lee: Fig. 3: cavity 101; Wang: Fig. 1D: cavity 161a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed Young’s modulus configuration because it is a characteristic of an otherwise known dielectric filling medium. MPEP 2112.01.
Illustrated below is Fig. 1D (an intermediate step) of Wang.
PNG
media_image5.png
176
707
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights