Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 & 6-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Singleton (Pub. No.: US 2007/0235548 A1) in view of Barth et al. (US Pub. No.: 2009/0014889 A1) and Solberg et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0286717 A1), or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Singleton (Pub. No.: US 2007/0235548 A1) in view of Barth et al. (US Pub. No.: 2009/0014889 A1), Solberg et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0286717 A1) and Reed (Pub. No.: US 2008/0096326 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Singleton discloses a method of making a device, comprising: reducing a thickness of each of two or more die (Par. 0034-0042, 0053; Fig. 2 – in Fig. 2, a plurality of electrical/opto-electrical components 20a, 20b, 20c are shown; each electrical component can be considered a die; the die could be a microprocessor chip, an LED, a switch etc.; the thickness of the electronic inlay 100 itself has been mentioned to be preferably between 0.018” to 0.028” which implies the thickness of the two or more die has been reduced at least in some possible embodiments); stacking said two or more die onto a PCB to form a (Par. 0034-0042, Fig. 2 – circuit board 10 can be considered as a printed circuit board; a plurality of dies 20a-20c are stacked onto the printed circuit board 10); encapsulating said stack between sheets of a laminate material via an encapsulation process to form an encapsulation (Par. 0041-0046 & 0060-0063, Figs. 2 & 5 – the bottom laminate material formed of bottom cover sheet 104 & seal coating 106, the top laminate material formed of top cover sheet 102 & seal coating 106; after the two or more die, 20a-20c, are stacked onto the PCB 10 and the bottom surface of the PCB is affixed to the bottom cover sheet 104, this intermediate structure is then put into an injection molding apparatus; the injection molding apparatus then injects a thermosetting polymeric material via a nozzle 60; during the injection process, gates are used to allow the flow of the thermosetting polymeric material between the top and bottom cover sheets; from the start to the end of the injection process of injecting the thermosetting polymeric material could be considered as the encapsulation process; an encapsulant of thermosetting polymeric material is provided between the top cover sheet 102 and the bottom cover sheet 104); and hardening said encapsulation to form said device via a hardening process, wherein said hardening is a different process than said encapsulation process (Par. 0041-0046 & 0060-0063, Figs. 2 & 5 - it is important to note that this prior art does not explicitly teach a hardening process; however, the presence of the hardening process is implied; during the encapsulation process, the injection molding apparatus injects a thermosetting polymeric material via a nozzle 60; the thermosetting polymeric material is then turned into a layer of thermosetting material 50 through a process of curing (not explicitly mentioned); it is important to note that the process of curing is implied to the thermosetting polymeric material which it must go through to reach its final usable state; this curing creates cross-linking between polymers to form irreversible chemical bond; the cross-linking ensures that the product would not re-melt when it goes through subsequent high temperature processes; this curing process could be considered as the hardening process which is clearly different from the earlier performed encapsulation process); and wherein said device is formed as a flexible laminated assembly that, after said hardening process, is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases (Par. 0039; Fig. 7 – implied; this prior art mentions that the device may include flexible displays which indicates that the device itself is flexible and is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases as long as the elastic limit is not crossed; this limitation is also only true for the device of the instant application as long as it is not flexed beyond its elastic limit; it cannot return to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases if it is flexed beyond its elastic limit).
Singleton does not explicitly disclose
stacking said two or more die onto a PCB to form a die stack.
Also, in the alternative, assuming arguendo that Singleton is not emphatic enough regarding reducing a thickness of each of two or more die,
Barth et al. discloses a method of making a device, comprising: reducing a thickness of each of two or more die (Paragraph 0029-0036, Figs. 1A-1G – it teaches reducing a thickness of two or more die, such as, CH1 & CH2 (Fig. 1G)); and stacking said two or more die onto a PCB to form a die stack (Paragraph 0029-0036, Figs. 1A-1G).
Additionally, Solberg et al. discloses a method of making a device, comprising: reducing a thickness of each of two or more die (Paragraph 0041 & 0051, Figs. 6-7 – this prior teaches two or more die, 126, are stacked on top of each other to form a die stack and the thickness of these dies may be about 100-200 microns implying the thickness has been reduced); and stacking said two or more die onto a PCB to form a die stack (Paragraph 0041 & 0051, Figs. 6-7 – this prior teaches two or more die, 126 are stacked on top of each other to form a die stack; PCB 148).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Barth et al. and Solberg et al. to adapt a method of making a device, comprising: reducing a thickness of each of two or more die; and stacking said two or more die onto a PCB to form a die stack of Singleton in order to manufacture a thin and light microelectronic assembly. Also, in the alternative, assuming arguendo that Singleton is not emphatic enough regarding wherein said device is formed as a flexible laminated assembly that, after said hardening process, is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases, Reed, at least implicitly, teaches wherein said device is formed as a flexible laminated assembly that, after said hardening process, is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases (Paragraph 0006, 0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Reed to adapt a method of making a device, wherein said device is formed as a flexible laminated assembly that, after said hardening process, is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation of Singleton once flexing ceases in order to manufacture a durable microelectronic assembly.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Singleton, as applied to claim 4, discloses the method, wherein: a thickness of each of said two or more die is between approximately 0.003 inches and 0.005 inches (Barth et al. - Paragraph 0029-0035 – this prior art teaches that the thickness of the dies is between about 0.002 inches to 0.008 inches; and Solberg et al. - Paragraph 0051 – this prior art teaches that the thickness of the dies is between about 0.004 inches to 0.008 inches).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Singleton, as applied to claim 4, discloses the method, wherein: a thickness of each of said two or more die is approximately 0.004 inches (Barth et al. - Paragraph 0029-0035 – this prior art teaches that the thickness of the dies is between about 0.002 inches to 0.008 inches; this prior art teaches that the thickness of the dies is between about 0.004 inches to 0.008 inches; or in other word, at least in some possible embodiment a thickness of each of said two or more die could potentially be approximately 0.004 inches; and Solberg et al. - Paragraph 0051 – this prior art teaches that the thickness of the dies is between about 0.004 inches to 0.008 inches; or in other word, at least in some possible embodiment a thickness of each of said two or more die could potentially be approximately 0.004 inches).
Response to Arguments
In light of the Applicants’ arguments filed on 09/30/2025, 102(b) rejection has been removed; however, 103(a) has been maintained and no new rejection has been added. Further explanations are added to clarify office’s position regarding claim limitation “wherein said device is formed as a flexible laminated assembly that, after said hardening process, is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases”
Applicants argue “… claim 4 requires "stacking said two or more die onto a PCB to form a die stack." In the art, a "die stack" is a term of art for vertically stacked dies (die-on-die or die-on-interposer) that are joined to one another, not merely multiple discrete components mounted side-by-side on a board. Singleton's Figure 2 shows a plurality of components placed on a circuit board, not dies stacked into a single stack structure on the PCB; broadening "die stack" to encompass any plurality of components on a board reads the word "stack" out of the claim and is inconsistent with its ordinary meaning”.
Examiner’s reply: The Examiner has withdrawn portions of the rejection which were inconsistent with the interpretation of the Applicants regarding “die stack”.
Regarding claim limitation “reducing a thickness of each of two or more die” the Applicants contend “Singleton nowhere teaches a thinning operation performed on "each" of multiple dies. The Office points only to overall inlay thickness ranges and to exemplary components (e.g., LEDs, switches) that "could be" used; that is not a disclosure of actually reducing the thickness of each die as a process step. … The rejection relies on Barth and Solberg to fill alleged gaps concerning thinning and stacking. Even if Barth and Solberg disclose thinning dies and vertically stacking dies in semiconductor packaging contexts, there is no articulated rationale to modify Singleton's discrete component board into a true "die stack" mounted on a PCB as claimed, nor to perform thinning on "each" of multiple dies used in that stack”.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: In a nutshell, the Applicants are saying that Singleton nowhere teaches a thinning operation. Regarding, supporting references Barth and Solberg, they are arguing that there is no articulated rationale to perform thinning on "each" of multiple dies used in that stack, Singleton does not explicitly teach a thinning step to reduce the thickness of each of two or more die. However, it teaches, as the Examiner has noted in the office action that the thickness of the entire electronic inlay 100 is preferably between 0.016’ and 0.028”(Par. 0040) and could be as thin as 0.018” Electronic inlay 100 is formed, in the stacking direction, of a bottom cover sheet 104, (at least 0.001” thick), a circuit board 10 (thickness not provided), electrical/opto-electrical components (20a, 20b, 20c), a portion of thermosetting material 50, a top cover sheet 102 (at least 0.001” thick) (Par. 0034-0044). The Examiner reasoned in the office action that this indicates the dies are substantially thinner than the conventionally used starting wafers. This in turn implies that a process step was carried out to thin the two or more die. In the alternative, assuming arguendo that Singleton is not emphatic enough regarding reducing the thickness, the Examiner has provided the teachings of Barth and Solberg, which the Applicants admit expressly teach the thinning step. Now, it is common knowledge in the art that the thicknesses of the dies are reduced for a number of advantageous reasons, such as better thermal management, enhanced electrical performance, smaller overall device footprints etc.
Applicants further argue “… claim 4 discloses "encapsulating said die stack between sheets of a laminate material via an encapsulation process to form an encapsulation," followed by "hardening said encapsulation to form said device via a hardening process, wherein said hardening is a different process than said encapsulation process." Singleton describes injection of a thermosetting polymer during molding; the curing that follows is part-and-parcel of that same molding/encapsulation operation and is not disclosed as a separate "hardening process" that is "different" from the encapsulation process, as claim 4 expressly requires. Nor does Singleton disclose that the die stack is encapsulated "between sheets of a laminate material"; rather, it describes injection-molded polymer filling a cavity-materially different from lamination between sheets”. Examiner’s Rebuttal: This issue has been addressed multiple times by the Examiner in previous office actions. The Applicants are advised to look at those previously-made rebuttals for understanding the Office’s position. Regarding “Nor does Singleton disclose that the die stack is encapsulated "between sheets of a laminate material"; rather, it describes injection-molded polymer filling a cavity-materially different from lamination between sheets” the Applicants are advised to look again at Fig. 5 and associated description (such as Par. 0060) which expressly say “The injection molding apparatus then injects thermosetting polymeric material via a nozzle 60 (shown in FIG. 5) between the top cover sheet 102 and the circuit board 10/bottom cover sheet 104, forming the layer of thermosetting material 50 from the thermosetting polymeric material” (emphasis added by the Examiner).
Applicants also argue “… claim 4 requires that "said device is formed as a flexible laminated assembly that, after said hardening process, is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases." A passing reference to flexible displays does not teach that the entire finished, hardened assembly is elastically flexible in both concave and convex directions and resiliently returns to flat. Because Singleton fails to disclose these specific process steps and the resulting elastic, laminated structure as claimed, anticipation is improper. … The alternative reliance on Reed to supply "flexibility" does not cure these gaps; Reed does not disclose a device that, after hardening, is a "flexible laminated assembly" with the claimed elastic return characteristics, nor does it supply the claim-critical requirement that hardening be a process different from the encapsulation process. The Office's rationale, manufacturing a "thin and light" or "durable" assembly, is a generic goal that does not explain why a skilled artisan would convert Singleton's structure into a true PCB-mounted die-on-die stack; replace injection molding with lamination between sheets; add a distinct, subsequent hardening process separate from encapsulation; and ensure the final device has the specific, resilient concave/convex flex-and- return behavior recited. Implementing all of those coordinated changes is not a simple design choice; it would require substantial re-engineering and a change in the principle of operation to achieve a different laminated, elastically flexible construction, which the cited art does not suggest as a whole. Absent a teaching, suggestion, or reasoned motivation to combine that yields the claimed sequence and structural outcome. Given the claim's explicit "different process" hardening and elastic return-to-flat requirements, the rejection rests on hindsight”.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Examiner stated in the office action regarding the claim limitation “wherein said device is formed as a flexible laminated assembly that, after said hardening process, is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases” that Singleton teaches “that the device may include flexible displays which indicates that the device itself is flexible and is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases (Par. 0039; Fig. 7). The supporting reference of Reed teach “flexible card structure” (Par. 0006). The device of Singleton or the device of Reed are flexible that is capable of being flexed into either a concave or convex orientation and returning to a substantially flat orientation once flexing ceases as long as it is not bent/flexed beyond its elastic limit.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
01/05/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893