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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 6, and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 contains the limitation “a component connected to a top side of the horizontal section of the conductor, the component affixed to the top side of the horizontal section by a conductive adhesive”, which does not further limit the limitation of claim 1 “a component mounted to an upper side of the horizontal section by use of a conductive adhesive”.
Claim 6 contains the limitation “the conductor comprises a unitary body, the unitary body bent to form the horizontal section and the vertical section”, which does not further limit the limitation of claim 1 “a conductor comprising a unitary body bent to form a horizontal section and vertical section”.
Claim 26 contains the limitation “a component connected to a top side of the horizontal section of the conductor, the component affixed to the top side of the horizontal section by a conductive adhesive”, which does not further limit the limitation of claim 22 “a component mounted to an upper side of the horizontal section by of a conductive adhesive”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 6, 8, 17, 19, 22-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20190019763 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 20180108618 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an electronic device comprising: a molded integrated device package (Fig. 11, 70), the molded integrated device package comprising a substrate (100), at least one electronic element (114) mounted to the substrate, and a molding compound (130a) in which the electronic element is at least partially embedded, a slot (Cut in region at edges of 130a, shown best in Fig. 6E 132) formed through the molding compound; a conductor comprising a unitary body (conductive shielding layer 140) bent to form a horizontal section (Shown) and a vertical section (Shown) extending nonparallel from the horizontal section, the horizontal section having a lower side attached to an upper portion of the molding compound (Shown), the vertical section inserted into the slot and electrically connected to the substrate (Shown); and a component (160) mounted to an upper side of the horizontal section (Shown) by use of a conductive adhesive (attached film 150, which would inherently be at least thermally conductive since it is used to bond a heat spreader 160 to the shielding layer 140). However, Chang does not disclose the molding compound being bonded to the lower side of the conductor by an adhesive disposed between the lower side of the conductor and the upper portion of the molding compound.
On the other hand, Yamamoto discloses a molding compound (fig. 1, 4) being bonded to the lower side of a conductor (9) by an adhesive (8) disposed between the lower side of the conductor and the upper portion of the molding compound (Shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chang according to the teachings of Yamamoto such that the lower side of the conductor would be bonded to the upper surface of the molding compound by an adhesive, in order to improve the structural integrity of the device by directly bonding the conductor to the molding compound.
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses wherein an entirety of the lower side of the horizontal section is connected to the upper portion of the molding compound of the molded integrated device package (shown).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses further comprising a component (160) connected to a top side of the horizontal section of the conductor (shown), the component affixed to the top side of the horizontal section by a conductive adhesive (145, where the conductive adhesive 145 is inherently thermally conductive as it bonds a heat spreader 160 to the device).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses wherein the conductor comprises a unitary body, the unitary body bent to form the horizontal section and the vertical section (shown).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses wherein the conductor comprises at least two pieces (horizontal piece and vertical pieces).
Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses wherein the conductor has at least one of the horizontal section has a larger surface area than the vertical section (Shown).
Regarding claim 19, Chang discloses a plurality of conductors (102) attached to the molding compound of the molded integrated device package (Shown), the plurality of conductors including the conductor (Conductor 140 is shown attached to the molding compound).
Regarding claim 22, Chang discloses an electronic device comprising: an integrated device package (Fig. 11, 70), the integrated device package comprising a substrate (100), at least one electronic element (114) mounted to the substrate, and a slot (Cut in region at edges of 130a, shown best in Fig. 6E, 132) formed at least partially through the integrated device package (shown); a conductor (Conductive shielding layer 140) comprising a unitary body bent to form a horizontal section (Shown) and a vertical section (Shown) extending nonparallel from the horizontal section, and the vertical section inserted into the slot (Shown) and electrically connected to a substrate (Shown); and a component (160) mounted to an upper side of the horizontal section by a conductive adhesive (attached film 150, which would inherently be at least thermally conductive since it is used to bond a heat spreader 160 to the shielding layer 140). However, Chang does not disclose the molding compound being bonded to the lower side of the conductor by an adhesive disposed between the lower side of the conductor and the upper portion of the molding compound.
On the other hand, Yamamoto discloses a molding compound (fig. 1, 4) being bonded to the lower side of a conductor (9) by an adhesive (8) disposed between the lower side of the conductor and the upper portion of the molding compound (Shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chang according to the teachings of Yamamoto such that the lower side of the conductor would be bonded to the upper surface of the molding compound by an adhesive, in order to improve the structural integrity of the device by directly bonding the conductor to the molding compound.
Regarding claim 23, Chang discloses wherein the integrated device package comprises a molding compound (130a) in which the electronic element is at least partially embedded (Shown). However, Chang does not disclose the lower side of the horizontal section is attached to an upper portion of the molding compound of the molded integrated device package by the adhesive.
On the other hand, Yamamoto discloses a molding compound (fig. 1, 4) being bonded to the lower side of a conductor (9) by an adhesive (8) disposed between the lower side of the conductor and the upper portion of the molding compound (Shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chang according to the teachings of Yamamoto such that the lower side of the conductor would be bonded to the upper surface of the molding compound by an adhesive, in order to improve the structural integrity of the device by directly bonding the conductor to the molding compound.
Regarding claim 26, Chang discloses a component (160) mounted to an upper side of the horizontal section (Shown) by use of a conductive adhesive (attached film 150, which would inherently be at least thermally conductive since it is used to bond a heat spreader 160 to the shielding layer 140).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13, 20, 33 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the vertical section comprises a pin and a power lead, the pin and the power lead separated by a gap.
For this reason, claims 11 and 13 are also objected to as dependents of claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record does not disclose the electronic device of claim 19, wherein the plurality of conductors have at least one of different horizontal section surface areas and different vertical section surface areas.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art of record does not disclose the electronic device of claim 22, further comprising wherein the vertical section comprises a pin and a power lead, the pin and the power lead separated by a gap and connected to different pads on the substrate.
For this reason, claim 36 is also objected to as a dependent of claim 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-12, filed 9/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art. Chang discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 22 except an adhesive being used to bond the lower surface of the conductor to the upper surface of the molding compound. Yamamoto discloses the use of an adhesive to bond the lower surface of a conductor to an upper surface of the molding compound. Furthermore, Examiner asserts that the use of an adhesive to bond structures, including conductors, to encapsulants such as a molding compound is common in the art, and not a novel or non-obvious feature unique to Yamamoto. For this reason, claims 1-3, 6, 8, 17, 19, 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yamamoto.
Conclusion
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 SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights