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
In view of prior art that indicates nonpatentability of the appealed claims in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reversed the Examiner in their decision mailed 03 December 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED (MPEP 1214.04).
A new ground of rejection set forth below.
A Technology Center Director or designee has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ANDREA L WELLINGTON/Andrea Wellington
Director, Technology Center 2800
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 14-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: “an up-down direction is the direction that the board and the mounting board are arranged. . . a columnar structure that extends in the up-down direction is not located between the pair of first electrode pads.” Emphasis added.
There is no antecedent basis in Applicant’s specification that clearly and explicitly defines what is meant by: “an up-down direction” and “a columnar structure.” Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not clearly and explicitly define what is meant by: “the direction that the board and the mounting board are arranged.” For example, the Applicant’s board and mounting board can be construed to be arranged along either the X-direction, the Y-direction, or the Z-direction.
In order to expedite prosecution, the claimed phrase: “an up-down direction” is construed as along the Z-direction, and “a columnar structure” is construed to include any structure that resembles a column, which includes, but is not limited to, a spacer.
All dependent claims are objected to because they depend from an objected parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites: “a columnar structure that extends in the up-down direction is not located between the pair of first electrode pads.” Emphasis added.
It is not clear what is meant by “a columnar structure” as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s specification does not explicitly define “a columnar structure.” For example, it is not clear whether the claimed: “columnar structure” is limited to the structure of the “spacer,” or whether the “columnar structure” is construed to include any structure that resembles a column, which includes, but is not limited to, a spacer. Applicant’s specification does not provide any examples of the “columnar structure” besides that of the spacer. Therefore, it is not clear what structures may be included within the claimed “a columnar structure” and what structures are not included by this limitation. As such, it is not clear whether the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
All dependent claims are rejected because they depend from an rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 6-9 and 14-19 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 1 recites: “a columnar structure that extends in the up-down direction is not located between the pair of first electrode pads.” Emphasis added.
As discussed above regarding the 112(a) rejection, it is not clear what is meant by “a columnar structure” as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s specification does not explicitly define “a columnar structure.” For example, it is not clear whether the claimed: “columnar structure” is limited to the structure of the “spacer,” or whether the “columnar structure” is construed to include elements that are different from a spacer. Applicant’s specification does not provide any examples of the “columnar structure” besides that of the spacer. Therefore, it is not clear how the claimed “columnar structure” should be construed.
In order to expedite prosecution, “a columnar structure” is construed to include any structure that resembles a column.
All dependent claims are rejected because they depend from an rejected parent claim.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites: “a columnar structure that extends in the up-down direction is not located between the pair of first electrode pads.” Emphasis added.
It is not clear what is meant by “is not located between the pair of first electrode pads” as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s specification does not explicitly define the meaning of: “between the pair of first electrode pads.” For example, when viewing Applicant’s Fig. 3, annotated below, it is not clear whether the top middle spacer 22 and the bottom middle spacer 22 are “not located between the pair of first electrode pads P11 and P12. A first person of ordinary skill would reasonably understand that the top middle spacer 22 and the bottom middle spacer 22 are not located between the pair of first electrode pads P11 and P12 when viewed from the perspective of the X-direction and the Z-direction. Conversely, a second person of ordinary skill would reasonably understand that the top middle spacer 22 and the bottom middle spacer 22 are located between the pair of first electrode pads P11 and P12 when viewed from the perspective of the Y-direction. These two conflicting reasonable interpretations of the word “between” renders the claim indefinite under 112B.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In order to expedite prosecution, the phrase: “not located between the pair of first electrode pads” is construed to mean “not located between” from the perspective of any single direction, including any one of the X, Y, or Z-direction.
All dependent claims are rejected because they depend from an rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goubault de Brugiere et al. (US 9,368,472, “Goubault de Brugiere”) in view of Odegard (US 7,224,071, “Odegard”).
Regarding claim 1, Goubault de Brugiere discloses 1. A board joint structure comprising: a board (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the substrate 20 is a board);
and a mounting board (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the substrate 10 is a mounting board);
wherein the board and the mounting board are joined together by a conductive joint material (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the substrate 20 and the substrate 10 are joined together by the interconnect bumps 22 which is a conductive joint material);
the board includes: a first insulating substrate including a first main surface (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15, col. 8, lines 24-25; the substrate 20 is a first insulating substrate including a first main surface which is the top surface of the substrate 20, the lower component 2 is a printed circuit board which is an insulative board with printed conductive tracks);
a plurality of first electrode pads provided on the first main surface (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the connection pads 21 are a plurality of first electrode pads provided on the first main surface of the substrate 20);
and a plurality of spacers provided on the first main surface and being thicker than the plurality of first electrode pads (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the spacer bumps 24 are a plurality of spacers provided on the main surface of the substrate 20 and are thicker than the plurality of connection pads 21);
the mounting board includes a plurality of second electrode pads (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the substrate 10 includes the connection pads 11 which are a plurality of second electrode pads);
the plurality of spacers are located at predetermined intervals (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the spacer bumps 24 are located at predetermined intervals, see Fig. 6A);
each of the plurality of first electrodes pads is surrounded by the plurality of spacers (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; each of the connection pads 21 are surrounded by the plurality of spacer bumps 24);
at least a portion of the mounting board is placed over the board in plan view of the first main surface (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; at least a portion of the substrate 10 is placed over the substrate 20 in plan view of the first main surface of the substrate 20);
all of the plurality of first electrode pads are joined to the plurality of second electrode pads with the conductive joint material (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; all of the connection pads 21 are joined to the connection pads 11 with the interconnect bumps 22);
the plurality of first electrode pads include one or more pairs of first electrode pads that are adjacent to one another (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the plurality of the connection pads 21 include one or more pairs of connection pads 21 that are adjacent to each other);
at least one of the one or more pairs of first electrode pads is surrounded by at least two of the plurality of spacers (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; at least one of the pairs of connection pads 21 is surrounded by at least two of the spacer bumps 24);
an up-down direction is the direction that the board and the mounting board are arranged (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the substrate 20 and the substrate 10 are arranged in an up-down direction);
and when viewed in the up-down direction, in the at least one of the one or more pairs of first electrode pads, surrounded by the at least two of the plurality of spacers, a columnar structure that extends in the up-down direction is not located between the pair of first electrode pads (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; when viewed in the up-down direction, the connection pads 21, surrounded by the spacer bumps 24, a columnar structure that extends in the up-down direction is not located between the pair of connection pads 21. Examiner’s note: see Goubault de Brugiere, annotated, below.).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
959
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
355
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Goubault de Brugiere does not disclose an insulating joint material for joining the board and the mounting board. Therefore, Goubault de Brugiere does not disclose wherein the board and the mounting board are joined together by an insulating joint material; at least a portion of the insulating joint material and the plurality of spacers are located between the board and the mounting board; at least a portion of an overlapping region of the first main surface overlapping the mounting board in plan view is joined to the mounting board by the insulating joint material.
Odegard discloses wherein the board and the mounting board are joined together by an insulating joint material (Fig. 1C, col. 4, lines 55-58; the underfill material 21 comprises a non-conductive epoxy, which is an insulating joint material, forming a rigid coupling between the die 11 and substrate 12);
at least a portion of the insulating joint material and the plurality of spacers are located between the board and the mounting board (Fig. 1C, col. 4, line 42 and lines 55-58; at least a portion of the underfill material 21 and the pedestals 17 are located between the die 11 and substrate 12);
at least a portion of an overlapping region of the first main surface overlapping the mounting board in plan view is joined to the mounting board by the insulating joint material (Fig. 1C, col. 4, line 42 and lines 55-58; at least a portion of an overlapping region of the die 11 overlapping the substrate 12 in plan view is joined to the substrate 12 by the underfill material 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Goubault de Brugiere’s board with Odegard’s insulating joint material in order to help to distribute the stress normally experienced at the joints between the die and solder columns over a wider area. This helps to strengthen the connection between the die and the substrate and helps prevent moisture and other contaminants from contacting the solder and other electrical connections, as suggested by Odegard at col. 5, lines 4-10.
Regarding claim 2, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1.
Goubault de Brugiere discloses 2. The board joint structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a protective film provided on the first main surface (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the peripheral pads 23 is a protective film provided on the first main surface of the substrate 20);
wherein the plurality of spacers are provided on a surface of the protective film (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the spacer bumps 24 are surmounted on each of the peripheral pads 23).
Regarding claim 3, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1.
Goubault de Brugiere discloses 3. The board joint structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers are protrusions of the first insulating substrate provided on the first main surface (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the spacer bumps 24 are protrusions of the substrate 20 which is a first insulating substrate, provided on the first main surface).
Regarding claim 9, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Goubault de Brugiere discloses 9. The board joint structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers have a thickness of from 20 μm to 100 μm both inclusive (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 7, lines 9-10; the spacers 24 has a thickness a thickness of 66 μm).
Regarding claim 14, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Goubault de Brugiere discloses 14. The board joint structure according to claim 1, wherein the board is a printed wiring board and the mounting board is a chip component (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, lines 21-24, claim 12; the substrate 20 is a printed wiring board and the substrate 10 is a chip component).
Regarding claim 15, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1.
Goubault de Brugiere does not disclose the limitations of claim 15.
Odegard discloses 15. The board joint structure according to claim 1, wherein the insulating joint material includes a thermosetting resin (Fig. 1C, col. 4, lines 55-58; the underfill material 21 comprises a non-conductive epoxy, which is a thermosetting resin).
Regarding claim 16, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1.
Goubault de Brugiere discloses 16. The board joint structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers includes six spacers (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the spacer bumps 24 include at least six spacer bumps 24, see Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 17, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1.
Goubault de Brugiere discloses 17. The board joint structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers are linear components that protrude from the first main surface of the board (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the spacer bumps 24 are linear components that protrude from the first main surface of the substrate 20, see Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 18, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1.
Goubault de Brugiere discloses 18. The board joint structure according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of spacers include a first plurality of spacers separated from one another by a first predetermined distance and a second plurality of spacers separated from one another by a second predetermined distance (Figs. 1, 2D, 6A, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 15; the spacer bumps 24 include a first plurality of spacer bumps 24 that are separated from one another by a first predetermined distance, and a second plurality of spacer bumps that are separated from one another by a second predetermined distance. See Fig. 6A, the spacers 24’ along the top portion of the substrate 20 are separated from adjacent spacers 24’ by a first predetermined distance, and the spacers 24’along the bottom of the substrate are separated from the spacers 24’ along the top by a second predetermined distance, and the spacers 24’ on the left side of the substrate 20 are spaced from the spacers 24’ on the right side of the substrate 20 by a third predetermined distance.).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard and Kato (US 9,960,512, “Kato”).
Regarding claim 4, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Goubault de Brugiere does not disclose the mounting board includes a portion that is not placed over the board.
Kato discloses the mounting board includes a portion that is not placed over the board (Fig. 1c, col. 5, line 32, col. 7, lines 11 and 66; the substrate 21 includes a portion that is not placed over the flexible circuit board 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Goubault de Brugiere’s board, as modified by Odegard, with Kato’s mounting board in order to provide a flexible circuit board whose durability is improved while good electrical characteristics are realized, as suggested by Kato at col. 1, lines 62-65.
Regarding claim 8, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Goubault de Brugiere does not disclose the first insulating substrate includes a bent portion.
Kato discloses the first insulating substrate includes a bent portion (Fig. 1c, col. 5, line 32, col. 7, lines 11 and 66; the flexible circuit board 10 includes a bent portion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Goubault de Brugiere’s board, as modified by Odegard, with Kato’s mounting board in order to provide a flexible circuit board whose durability is improved while good electrical characteristics are realized, as suggested by Kato at col. 1, lines 62-65.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard and Sumita (US 8.828,806, “Sumita”).
Regarding claim 6, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Goubault de Brugiere does not disclose the electrode pads are out of contact with the portion of the insulating joint material that is located between the board and the mounting board.
Sumita discloses the electrode pads are out of contact with the portion of the insulating joint material that is located between the board and the mounting board (Fig. 2, col. 2, lines 17-21, col. 9, lines 45-57; the underfill composition 5 is made from epoxy resin which is an insulating joint material that is out of contact with the electrode pads and the underfill composition is located between the board and the mounting board).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Goubault de Brugiere’s board, as modified by Odegard, with Sumita’s insulating joint material which is not spread throughout the circuit board in order to prevent the problems that occur when the underfill spreads throughout the circuit board, and in the case of a semiconductor chip laminate of wire bonding type, the underfill infiltrates through pads, which causes cracks that form in the package to cause breakage to the semiconductor chip surrounding region as suggested by Sumita at col. 1, line 60-col. 2, line 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goubault de Brugiere et al. in view of Odegard and Graf et al. (US 2012/0267731, “Graf”).
Regrading claim 7, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard does not disclose wherein the first insulating substrate is flexible. In fact, Goubault de Brugiere, in view of Odegard, does not disclose the type of material used for the substrate.
Graf et al., paragraph [0029], discloses a flip chip wherein the first insulating substrate is flexible, stating this provides an advantage to provide for an electrically insulating substrate that has circuit leads integrated thereon and that can be reversibly bent.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Goubault de Brugiere’s board, as modified by Odegard, with Graf’s first insulating flexible substrate for the advantages that a flexible substrate provides, as suggested by Graf at [0029].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard and Ishizuki (JP2007324418A, “Ishizuki.” Examiner’s note: the citations refer to the English translation of Ishizuki.).
Regarding claim 19, Goubault de Brugiere in view of Odegard discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2, above.
Goubault de Brugiere does not disclose the limitations of claim 19.
Ishizuki discloses 19. The board joint structure according to claim 2, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of first electrode pads is exposed through the protective film (Figs. 5, 7, 9 and 11, page 5, top; electrodes 1a is embedded on and is exposed through the insulating film 1b. In addition, the substrate 1 can be manufactured by the same process).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Goubault de Brugiere’s board, as modified by Odegard, with Ishizuki’s protective film in order to provide for an embodiment using an LSI flip chip for face-down bonding with an electronic circuit substrate and a motherboard, as suggested by Ishizuki at page 3, middle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim 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.
/STANLEY TSO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847