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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, claim 1 - 6 in the reply filed on 07/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20200176405 A1, “Wu”) in view of Hayashi (US 20120189818 A1, “Hayashi”)
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses (Fig. 1G) a packaging substrate, comprising: a core layer (CDL); and an upper layer (BL1) disposed on the core layer, wherein the core layer comprises a glass core (para [0014]) comprising a first face and a second face facing each other, wherein the upper layer comprises: a first distribution layer (112A) formed on the core layer; and a dummy layer (116) formed on the first distribution layer, wherein the dummy layer comprises a material having a lower Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) than a CTE of an insulating material of the first distribution layer.
Wu is silent on wherein the dummy layer comprises a material having a lower Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) than a CTE of an insulating material of the first distribution layer.
However, Hayashi discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the dummy layer (11b) comprises a material having a lower Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) than a CTE of an insulating material of the first distribution layer (See para [0067] – [0069]).
Wu and Hayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of packaging substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Hayashi and provide wherein the dummy layer (11b) comprises a material having a lower Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) than a CTE of an insulating material of the first distribution layer (See para [0067] – [0069]). Doing so would provide reduced thermal stress and warpage (para [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Hayashi discloses the packaging substrate of claim 1, further comprising: a second distribution layer (RDL1) formed on the dummy layer, wherein the dummy layer is disposed between the first distribution layer and the second distribution layer and is in direct contact with the first distribution layer (See Fig. 1G).
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Hayashi discloses the packaging substrate of claim 1, wherein Wu further discloses when a difference (absolute value) between a CTE of the glass core (3.2 ppm/k, para [0014]) and Hayashi discloses a CTE (20 ppm/K to 50 ppm/k para [0067]) of the first distribution layer is D_C, and a difference (absolute value) between the CTE of the first distribution layer and a CTE of the dummy layer (0 ppm/K to 10 ppm/k para [0069]) is D_D, and the D_D is smaller than the D_C (D_D = 20 ppm/k – 10 ppm/k = 10 ppm/k, D_C = 20 ppm/k – 3.2 ppm/k = 16.8 ppm/k, D_D is smaller than D_C).
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Hayashi discloses the packaging substrate of claim 1, wherein Hayashi further discloses the dummy layer comprises 80 wt% or more of an inorganic material (See para [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Hayashi discloses the packaging substrate of claim 1, wherein Hayashi further disclose a CTE of the dummy layer
20
p
p
m
/
°
C
or less (See para [0051], [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Hayashi discloses the packaging substrate of claim 1, wherein Wu further discloses the upper layer further comprises: a second distribution layer formed (RDL1) on the dummy layer; and a fine distribution layer (122) formed on the second distribution layer, wherein the second distribution layer comprises a first polymer resin (See para [0022]) and a first inorganic particle A, wherein the fine distribution layer comprises a second polymer resin B (See para [0022]) and a second inorganic particle B, and wherein an average size of the first inorganic particle is smaller than an average size of the second inorganic particle.
Hayashi further discloses that the size of the inorganic particles {(12), fig. 2 para [0045]} in layer (10b) is smaller than the size of the inorganic particles {(13a, 13b), fig. 2 para [0057]}. So, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art to select the particle size, if required, such that the average particle size in the first inorganic particle is smaller than the average particle size in the fine layer without doing an inventive step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 pm.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on 571-272-2342. 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights