DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communication filed 24 October 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending in the application.
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 Objections
Claims 5, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, claim 5, recites “a panel substrate with dummy regions disposed between the plurality of the quad substrate,” which should instead read “a panel substrate with dummy regions disposed between a plurality of the quad substrates.”
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “a protective material fills the defects and cover the side surfaces,” which should instead read “a protective material fills the defects and covers the side surfaces.”
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “the operation D is a singulation operation of separating the individual packaging substrate,” which should instead read “the operation D is a singulation operation of separating the individual packaging substrates.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manepalli et al. (US 20230087838 A1), hereinafter referred to as Manepalli et al., in view of Ohtorii et al. (US 20220102230 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ohtorii et al.
Regarding claim 1, Manepalli et al. teaches a substrate, comprising a packaging substrate on which one or more electronic elements are disposed, wherein the substrate comprises:
a glass core (202) (Fig. 2, paragraph 29: glass core 202) comprising a first surface and a second surface facing each other, and a side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface;
PNG
media_image1.png
247
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
337
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an upper layer (204) stacked on top of the first surface, or a lower layer (205) stacked below the second surface (Fig. 2 and paragraph 29: first and second buildup layers 204, 205); and
a side protective layer (352) covering the side surfaces of the glass core (202) with a protective material (Fig. 2, paragraph 37: protective coating 352 applied to the edges of the substrate);
wherein a defect is (242) formed on the side surface of the glass core (202) in an inward direction of the glass core (202), and the protective material (252) fills a space within the glass core (202) caused by the defect (242) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 29: crack 242 in glass layer 202 may be filled by the protective coating 252; paragraphs 35 and 36: both the protective layers 252 and 352 may be a resin), and
Manepalli et al. does not teach that the side surface of the glass core protrudes from a side surface of the upper layer or a side surface of the lower layer. Ohtorii et al. does teach that the side surface of the glass core protrudes from a side surface of the upper layer or a side surface of the lower layer (Ohtorii et al. paragraphs 41 and 44-45: the end face of the glass substrate 100 protrudes outward, beyond upper and lower layers 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the glass core of Manepalli et al. such that it protrudes from a side surface of the upper and lower layers as taught by Ohtorii et al. because a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 3, Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the packaging substrate (200) comprises the upper layer (204) and the lower layer (205), wherein the side protection layer (352) covers a side surface of the upper layer (204), the side surface of the glass core (202), and a side surface of the lower layer (205).
Regarding claim 5, Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. teaches the substrate of claim 1, further comprising: a strip substrate in which a plurality of individual packaging substrates is arranged with dummy regions between them; a quad substrate with dummy regions placed between a plurality of the strips; a panel substrate with dummy regions disposed between the plurality of the quad substrate; or an individual packaging substrate (Fig. 3 and paragraph 38: the board 200 may be provided as a package substrate 360 with additional layers 362 and components 320, 321).
Regarding claim 8, Manepalli et al. teaches a manufacturing method of a substrate having a side protection layer, comprising:
operation A of preparing the substrate by preparing a glass core (202) (Fig. 2, paragraph 29: glass core 202) comprising a first surface and a second surface facing each other, and forming an upper layer (204) on the first surface and a lower layer (205) under the second surface (Fig. 2 and paragraph 29: first and second buildup layers 204, 205); and
operation B of preparing a side protection layer (252, 352) on side surfaces of the substrate (202) (Fig. 2, paragraph 37: protective coating 352 applied to the edges of the substrate),
wherein the glass core of the substrate has defects (242) formed on side surfaces (Fig. 2 and paragraph 29: crack 242 in glass layer 202),
at the side protection layer (252, 352), a protective material (252) fills the defects (242) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 29: crack 242 in glass layer 202 may be filled by the protective coating 252) and covers the side surfaces of the glass core (202) (paragraph 37: protective coating 352 applied to the edges of the substrate).
Manepalli et al. does not teach that the side surface of the glass core protrudes from a side surface of the upper layer or a side surface of the lower layer. Ohtorii et al. does teach that the side surface of the glass core protrudes from a side surface of the upper layer or a side surface of the lower layer (Ohtorii et al. paragraphs 41 and 44-45: the end face of the glass substrate 100 protrudes outward, beyond upper and lower layers 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the glass core of Manepalli et al. such that it protrudes from a side surface of the upper and lower layers as taught by Ohtorii et al. because a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 9, Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. teaches the manufacturing method of the substrate of wherein operation C is performed one or more times during the operation A or between the operation A and the operation B, and the operation C is an operation of identifying an occurrence of the defects on the substrate of the operation A (Manepalli et al. paragraphs 30-31, paragraph 34, and claim 15: it is inherent that cracks would be identified before they are filled).
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manepalli et al., in view of Ohtorii et al., in further view of Kimura et al. (US 20170140948 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kimura et al.
Regarding claim 2, Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. teaches the substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that the protective material has a Young’s modulus of 0.1 GPa to 17 GPa at 24⁰C.
Kimura et al. does teach that the protective material may have a Young’s modulus of 0.1 GPa to 17 GPa at 24⁰C (Kimura et al. paragraph 101: the polymer has a Young’s modulus of 35 GPa at 25⁰C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the protective material of Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. with a protective material that has a Young’s modulus of 0.1 GPa to 17 GPa at 24⁰C as taught by Kimura et al. because the polymer of Kimura et al. slows crack propagation (Kimura et al. paragraph 95).
Regarding claim 7, Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. teaches the substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that the protective material comprises an elastic polymer comprising silane functional groups.
Kimura et al. does teach that the protective material may comprise an elastic polymer comprising silane functional groups (Kimura et al. paragraph 69: protective film 11 may comprise silane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the protective material of Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. with a silane functional group as taught by Kimura et al. because such an additive would improve the protective film’s adhesion characteristics at high temperatures (Kimura et al. paragraph 66).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manepalli et al., in view of Ohtorii et al., in further view of Iwasaki et al. (JP 2014022483 A), hereinafter referred to as Iwasaki et al.
Regarding claim 4, Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. teaches the substrate of claim 1, but does not teach that the protective material comprises an elastic polymer resin, and the elastic polymer resin has a curing temperature of 120⁰C or more.
Iwasaki et al. does teach that the protective material may comprise an elastic polymer resin, and the elastic polymer resin may have a curing temperature of 120⁰C or more (Iwasaki et al. page 4, paragraphs 4-5: the resin 63 is cured in steps at 100⁰C, 140⁰C, and 320⁰C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the protective material of Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. from an elastic polymer as taught by Iwasaki et al. because the elastic polymer of Iwasaki, along with Iwasaki’s curing process, improves manufacturing yield (Iwasaki et al. page 7, paragraphs 2-4).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manepalli et al., in view of Ohtorii et al., in further view of Chen et al. (TW 202201583 A), hereinafter Chen et al.
Regarding claim 10, Manepali et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. teaches the manufacturing method of the substrate of the substrate of wherein operation D is further performed after the operation A, the operation D is a singulation operation of separating the individual packaging substrate (Manepalli paragraph 30: the substrate 200 is singulated).
Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. does not teach that the substrate of operation A has a plurality of individual packaging substrates arranged in a dummy region. Chen et al. does teach that the substrate of operation A has a plurality of individual packaging substrates arranged in a dummy region (see Chen et al. Figs. 6A-6B and page 5, last paragraph: the devices are arranged with dummy structures 404 between them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the individual packaging substrates of Manepalli et al. in view of Ohtorii et al. with dummy regions arranged between them as taught by Chen et al. because the dummy structures of Chen et al. help to prevent warpage during and after singulation of the package (see Chen et al. page 8, third paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at (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.
/JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights