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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 15, 19, 20, cancellation of claim 16, and the addition of claims 21-24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejection is withdrawn due to the current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes new art is cited to account for the updated claim language.
In the Remarks (page 2), the Applicant appears to be attempting to draw a distinction between the Pelletier reference’s use of the terms “trench” and “general depression”.
The Examiner notes the “general depression”, as seen in fig.5b/6a #166, is understood to also constitute a trench, albeit a larger trench than that at fig.5a/b #154. It is further noted that at least claims 1, 15 and 19 do not further define the trench in a manner which distinguishes from #166.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier et al. (US 2019/0067037) in view of Camacho et al. (US 2014/0011315).
With respect to claim 1, Pelletier discloses an apparatus (fig.6a) comprising: an integrated circuit chip (fig.6a #100, [0024]) comprising a first surface region (fig.6a lower surface area of #100 with no underfill #150) and a second surface region (fig.6a lower surface area of #100 with underfill #150) surrounding the first surface region (as seen in fig.7b/8); a substrate (fig.6a #200) coupled to the integrated circuit chip through a plurality of connections comprising solder (fig.6a #180, [0027]); and underfill (fig.6a #150) between the substrate and the integrated circuit chip, wherein the underfill contacts the second surface region, but does not contact the first surface region (fig.6a as defined above), wherein the substrate comprises at least one trench (fig.6a #166) proximate to at least a portion of a perimeter of the first surface region (fig.6a #166 is next to a portion of the perimeter of the region without underfill). Pelletier does not teach the trench is at least partially filled with the underfill. Camacho teaches a related apparatus (fig.9) which includes a substrate (fig.9 #120+122), use of underfill (fig.9 #136) and notches/trenches (fig.9 #142s) which are partially filled with underfill to prevent the underfill from region the central region of a device atop the substrate ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Pelletier to allow for the trench to be partially filled with underfill as demonstrated by Camacho in order to capture and hold excess underfill to prevent it from reaching the central region of the device (Camacho, [0054]).
With respect to claim 2, Pelletier discloses a material (fig.6a #154) on the first surface region between the first surface region and the underfill.
With respect to claim 6, Pelletier discloses an air gap adjacent to the first surface region (fig.6a air gap formed by lack of underfill #150 beneath #102).
With respect to claim 7, Pelletier discloses the air gap is between the first surface region and a portion of the substrate facing the first surface region (as seen in fig.6a).
With respect to claim 10, Pelletier teaches the device outlined above, including using a single trench on the substrate (fig.6a #166), but does not teach a plurality of trenches on the substrate proximate to at least a portion of a perimeter of the first surface region in the embodiment. Pelletier further teaches using multiple trenches in other embodiments (see fig.4a,b #154s, fig.6b #164). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to change the single trench of fig.6a of Pelletier to be more than 1 trench as demonstrated in other embodiments of Pelletier in order to control the underfill material in more than 1 particular location on the substrate and to reduce the need to remove large amounts of materials (e.g. a thin multi-trench perimeter could replace the large trench in fig.6a and thereby reduce amounts of removed materials).
With respect to claim 13, Pelletier discloses the second surface region entirely surrounds the first surface region (fig.6a, as defined above, see fig.4b, 7a/b, 8, 9a/b and [0048]).
With respect to claim 15, Pelletier discloses a system (fig.6a) comprising: an integrated circuit chip (fig.6a #100, [0024]) comprising: a first surface region (fig.6a lower surface area of #100 with no underfill #150); a second surface region (fig.6a lower surface area of #100 with underfill #150) adjacent to the first surface region; and a material to prevent underfill from contacting the first surface region during an underfill dispensing operation in which underfill contacts at least a portion of the second surface region (fig.6a #154, [0032]); a substrate (fig.6a #200) coupled to the integrated circuit chip; and underfill between the substrate and the integrated circuit chip (fig.6a #150), wherein the substrate comprises at least one trench (fig.6a #166) proximate to at least a portion of a perimeter of the first surface region (fig.6a #166 is next to a portion of the perimeter of the region without underfill). Pelletier does not teach the trench is at least partially filled with the underfill. Camacho teaches a related apparatus (fig.9) which includes a substrate (fig.9 #120+122), use of underfill (fig.9 #136) and notches/trenches (fig.9 #142s) which are partially filled with underfill to prevent the underfill from region the central region of a device atop the substrate ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Pelletier to allow for the trench to be partially filled with underfill as demonstrated by Camacho in order to capture and hold excess underfill to prevent it from reaching the central region of the device (Camacho, [0054]).
With respect to claim 19, Pelletier discloses a method comprising: providing an integrated circuit chip (fig.6a #100, [0024]) with a substrate (fig.6a #200), the integrated circuit chip comprising a first surface region (fig.6a lower surface area of #100 with no underfill #150) and a second surface region (fig.6a lower surface area of #100 with underfill #150) adjacent to the first surface region; applying solder to couple the integrated circuit chip to the substrate (fig.6a #180, [0027]); and dispensing underfill (fig.6a #150 via #152) between the integrated circuit chip and the substrate, the underfill contacting at least some of a plurality of joints comprising solder (fig.6a #180s), the substrate, and the second surface region, but not contacting the first surface region (as seen in fig.6a), wherein the substrate comprises at least one trench (fig.6a #166) proximate to at least a portion of a perimeter of the first surface region (fig.6a #166 is next to a portion of the perimeter of the region without underfill). Pelletier does not teach the trench is at least partially filled with the underfill. Camacho teaches a related apparatus (fig.9) which includes a substrate (fig.9 #120+122), use of underfill (fig.9 #136) and notches/trenches (fig.9 #142s) which are partially filled with underfill to prevent the underfill from region the central region of a device atop the substrate ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Pelletier to allow for the trench to be partially filled with underfill as demonstrated by Camacho in order to capture and hold excess underfill to prevent it from reaching the central region of the device (Camacho, [0054]).
With respect to claim 20, Pelletier discloses coupling a material (fig.6a #154) proximate the first surface region, the material to prevent the underfill from contacting the first surface region ([0032]).
Claim(s) 3, 9, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier and Camacho in view of Kyozuka et al. (JP 2009-021430).
With respect to claim 3, Pelletier, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, and further teaches many options for materials which include polymers that can be made hydrophobic ([0039], polyimide, polyamide, etc.), with the main idea for the material to control the underfill flow via forming a meniscus ([0032-33, 36]), but Pelletier does not teach the material comprises a hydrophobic material. Kyozuka teaches a related photonics device (abstract, fig.1/2) which includes using a hydrophobic material (fig.1/2 #15s, “The blocking layers 15 </ b> A and 15 </ b> B have a band shape (for example, a thickness of 0.1 to 10 μm and a width of 5 to 50 μm). A representative example is a crystalline or amorphous fluororesin layer made of a material having poor wettability compared to the fill resin 30 such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyperfluorobutenyl vinyl ether, etc. In addition, there are “Cytop (registered trademark)” manufactured by Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., which is a transparent amorphous fluororesin, and “Teflon (registered trademark)”, which is an opaque crystalline fluororesin.”) to control the meniscus and extent of an underfill (fig.1/5) between upper (fig.1 #10, fig.3 #1) and lower (fig.1 #20) substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the hydrophobic material taught by Kyozuka in place of the material of Pelletier in order to make use of a material demonstrated to suitably control the extent of an underfill disposed between substrates (see also MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 9, Pelletier, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, and further teaches a plurality of structures on the substrate proximate to at least a portion of a perimeter of the first surface region (fig.6a #154 on left and #154 on right; also note the dashed nature of the #154s in fig.7a and fig.4b). Pelletier further teaches many options for materials which include polymers that can be made hydrophobic ([0039], polyimide, polyamide, etc.), with the main idea for the material to control the underfill flow via forming a meniscus ([0032-33, 36]), but Pelletier does not teach the material comprises a hydrophobic material. Kyozuka teaches a related photonics device (abstract, fig.1/2) which includes using a hydrophobic material (fig.1/2 #15s, “The blocking layers 15 </ b> A and 15 </ b> B have a band shape (for example, a thickness of 0.1 to 10 μm and a width of 5 to 50 μm). A representative example is a crystalline or amorphous fluororesin layer made of a material having poor wettability compared to the fill resin 30 such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyperfluorobutenyl vinyl ether, etc. In addition, there are “Cytop (registered trademark)” manufactured by Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., which is a transparent amorphous fluororesin, and “Teflon (registered trademark)”, which is an opaque crystalline fluororesin.”) to control the meniscus and extent of an underfill (fig.1/5) between upper (fig.1 #10, fig.3 #1) and lower (fig.1 #20) substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the hydrophobic material taught by Kyozuka in place of the material of Pelletier in order to make use of a material demonstrated to suitably control the extent of an underfill disposed between substrates (see also MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 14, Pelletier, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the chips to be photonics based ([0024]), but does not teach the first surface region comprises a surface region of a laser of a transmitter optical sub-assembly. Kyozuka additionally teaches the use of a transmitter optical subassembly (fig.1/2 laser with connection to waveguide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Pelletier to include a transmitter optical sub assembly as a part of the first surface region as demonstrated by Kyozuka in order to send communication signals from the device.
With respect to claim 21, Pelletier, as modified, teaches a plurality of structures (fig.6a #154s) on the substrate, wherein a trench (fig.6a #166) of the at least one trench is proximate to a structure of the structures (fig.6a #166 next to #154s). Pelletier further teaches many options for materials of the structures which include polymers that can be made hydrophobic ([0039], polyimide, polyamide, etc.), with the main idea for the material to control the underfill flow via forming a meniscus ([0032-33, 36]), but Pelletier does not teach the structure material comprises a hydrophobic material. Kyozuka teaches a related photonics device (abstract, fig.1/2) which includes using a hydrophobic material (fig.1/2 #15s, “The blocking layers 15 </ b> A and 15 </ b> B have a band shape (for example, a thickness of 0.1 to 10 μm and a width of 5 to 50 μm). A representative example is a crystalline or amorphous fluororesin layer made of a material having poor wettability compared to the fill resin 30 such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyperfluorobutenyl vinyl ether, etc. In addition, there are “Cytop (registered trademark)” manufactured by Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., which is a transparent amorphous fluororesin, and “Teflon (registered trademark)”, which is an opaque crystalline fluororesin.”) to control the meniscus and extent of an underfill (fig.1/5) between upper (fig.1 #10, fig.3 #1) and lower (fig.1 #20) substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the hydrophobic material taught by Kyozuka in place of the material of Pelletier in order to make use of a material demonstrated to suitably control the extent of an underfill disposed between substrates (see also MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier and Camacho in view of Dobriyal (US 2021/0066882).
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Pelletier, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the device to be photonics based ([0024]), but Pelletier does not teach a processor unit to communicate with the integrated circuit chip, wherein the processor unit comprises at least one of a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processor, a digital signal process, or a cryptographic processor OR a battery communicatively coupled to the processor unit, a display communicatively coupled to the processor unit, or a network interface communicatively coupled to the processor unit. Dobriyal teaches a related photonics device which includes an underfill management system (fig.1) and further teaches the photonics device to be in communication with a processor unit comprising a graphics processor (fig.17 #404/graphics GPU) and a battery coupled to the processor (fig.17 battery). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the photonics device of Pelletier to make use of a graphic processor and battery coupled to the photonic system as demonstrated by Dobriyal in order to control the photonics device, display/output information, and power the larger system.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier, Camacho and Kyozuka in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 11199673).
With respect to claim 22, Pelletier, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the hydrophobic structures to be cylinders. Rosenberg teaches a related apparatus (fig.1a) with an underfill exclusion zone in the center (fig.1a #106) and which makes use of cylinders as underfill control structures (fig.1g #112s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the underfill exclusion structures of Pelletier to be cylindrical as Rosenberg has demonstrated such a shape of underfill exclusion structures is useful in controlling the extent of the underfill material via control of capillary action (Rosenberg, col.4 lines 53-56).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier, Camacho and Kyozuka in view of Kim (US 11508652).
With respect to claims 23 and 24, Pelletier, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including using multiple trenches (see fig.4a,b #154s, fig.6b #164) and the trench and structures are proximate to a perimeter of the first surface region (fig.6a, both the structures #154s and trench #166 is next to the perimeter of the exclusion zone), but does not teach the at least one trench is a plurality of trenches, and wherein the plurality of trenches and the plurality of hydrophobic structures are arranged in an alternating pattern proximate to the perimeter of the first surface region. Kim teaches a related apparatus (fig.19/20) which includes the use of multiple trenches (fig.19 #150s/155s) and structures (fig.19 #110s/115s) to create underfill exclusion zones (e.g. fig.20), wherein the trenches and structures are alternating (see fig.19 dam/trench/dam) and disposed around a perimeter (fig.19 around perimeter of central region of #250). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the trenches and structures of Pelletier to make use of a plurality of trenches and structures with an alternating pattern around the perimeter as demonstrated by Kim in order create an enhanced control means to exclude underfill from the central device region and further control air flow (Kim, col.7 lines 58-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11508652, 11199673, 9607863, 2021/0066882, 2014/0011315 and 2005/0253207 all teach systems that appear to read on at least claims 1, 15 and 19.
Please also see the additional references noted on the pto892 which are related art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828