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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Para. [0053] read “[t]he core 101 may be formed of any suitable material, including glass, a fiber-reinforced epoxy, an organic dielectric material, such as an epoxy, or a phenolic resin or polymide resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon.” The Examiner believes that “polymide” should be “polyimide” which is a known polymeric material in the art, and appears in the specification in other paragraphs (e.g., para. [0041]), while “polymide” appears not to be a known material in the art. It is apparent, based on other portions of the specification, that Applicant intended to claim the material polyimide, not polymide.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 17 line 7 reads “first stiffener extending” which is grammatically incorrect.
Claims 23 and 24 read “polymide” which the Examiner believes should read as “polyimide” since polyimide is a known polymeric material in the art while “polymide” appears not to be a known material in the art. It is apparent, based on other portions of the specification, that Applicant intended to claim the material polyimide, not polymide.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17-19, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US Patent No. 8,598,698), Pon et al. (“Pon” US 2020/0118941), and Hsu et al. (“Hsu” US 2022/0285257).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a microelectronic assembly (Figures 1, 3A, and 4A), comprising:
a substrate (300, col. 4 lines 22-25 discloses that the substrate 300 is a more detailed perspective of the package substrate 108 of Figure 1) having a first surface (lower surface) and an opposing second surface (upper surface), including:
a core (320) disposed between the first surface (lower surface) and the second surface (upper surface) of the substrate (300, see Figure 3),
wherein the core (320) has a third surface (lower surface) and an opposing fourth surface (upper surface);
a first stiffener (330) in the core (320) extending between the third surface (lower surface) and the fourth surface (upper surface) of the core (320), wherein the first stiffener (330) is along a perimeter of the core (320, see Figure 4A); and
a die (102) electrically coupled to the second surface (upper surface) of the substrate (300, 108 in Figure 1, see col. 3 lines 49-52).
Lim does not disclose a second stiffener in the core extending between the third surface and the fourth surface of the core, wherein the second stiffener is along a perimeter of the core and is separated from and concentric with the first stiffener; and the die having a footprint in a top- down plane view relative to the second surface of the substrate, wherein the first and second stiffeners are entirely outside of the footprint of the die.
Pon discloses in Figure 3C and para. [0046], however, a first and second stiffener (330, formed as concentric rings, see para. [0046]) in the core (310B) extending between the third surface (lower surface) and the fourth surface (upper surface) of the core (310B), wherein the second stiffener (one of the concentric rings of stiffener 330) is along a perimeter of the core (310B) and is separated from and concentric with the first stiffener (other concentric ring of stiffener 330, see para. [0046]); and the die (340) having a footprint in a top- down plane view relative to the second surface (top surface) of the substrate (310A/B/C), wherein the first and second stiffeners (concentric rings of stiffener 330) are entirely outside of the footprint of the die (340, para. [0025] discloses that the stiffener is used in the outer areas of the package, i.e. outside of the footprint of the die, that are especially prone to warpage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Pon into the teachings of Lim to include the two-part, concentric stiffeners entirely outside of the footprint of the die for the purpose of providing structural support to different parts of the core of the package, especially those outside of the die which are more prone to warpage (Pon, para. [0025]).
Lim does not disclose wherein a thickness of the core is between 0.1 millimeters and 1.4 millimeters.
Hsu discloses, however, a core (“support member” 26, para. [0104]), wherein a thickness of the core (26) is between 0.1 millimeters and 1.4 millimeters (between 0.05 and 1.5 mm, see para. [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Hsu into the teachings of Lim and Pon to include the core having a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1.4 mm for the purpose of increasing rigidity which decreases warpage, while also keeping the core thin enough to where the pitch between through holes still achieves desirable wiring density (Hsu, para. [0011]-[0012]).
Note that the range disclosed by Hsu overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness of a core layer in a substrate to be a result effective variable affecting warpage mitigation and wiring density. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Hsu to have the thickness of the core layer within the claimed range in order to mitigate warpage and provide desired wiring density, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses wherein the first stiffener (330) is a continuous ring along a perimeter of the core (320, see Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 8, Lim discloses wherein the core (320) further includes a plated through hole (PTH) via (315, see Figure 3A and col. 4 lines 52-67).
Regarding claim 9, Lim discloses wherein a material of the first stiffener (330) includes silicon, glass, a metal, an amorphous metal alloy, or a ceramic (copper, see col. 4, lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 10, Lim discloses wherein the material of the first stiffener (330) includes a metal, or an amorphous metal alloy (copper, see col. 4, lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 12, Lim discloses a microelectronic assembly, comprising:
a substrate (300, col. 4 lines 22-25 discloses that the substrate 300 is a more detailed perspective of the package substrate 108 of Figure 1) having a first surface (lower surface) and an opposing second surface (upper surface), the substrate (300) including:
a core (320) disposed between the first surface (lower surface) and the second surface (upper surface) of the substrate (300, see Figure 3),
wherein the core (320) has a third surface (lower surface) and an opposing fourth surface (upper surface);
a first stiffener (330) in the core (320) extending between the third surface (lower surface) and the fourth surface (upper surface) of the core (320), wherein the first stiffener (330) is along a perimeter of the core (320, see Figure 4A); and
a die (102) electrically coupled to the second surface (upper surface) of the substrate (300, 108 in Figure 1, see col. 3 lines 49-52); and
a circuit board electrically coupled to the first surface (lower surface) of the substrate (see col. 3, lines 52-53).
Lim does not disclose a second stiffener in the core extending between the third surface and the fourth surface of the core, wherein the second stiffener is along a perimeter of the core and is separated from and concentric with the first stiffener; and the die having a footprint in a top- down plane view relative to the second surface of the substrate, wherein the first and second stiffeners are entirely outside of the footprint of the die.
Pon discloses in Figure 3C and para. [0046], however, a first and second stiffener (330, formed as concentric rings, see para. [0046]) in the core (310B) extending between the third surface (lower surface) and the fourth surface (upper surface) of the core (310B), wherein the second stiffener (one of the concentric rings of stiffener 330) is along a perimeter of the core (310B) and is separated from and concentric with the first stiffener (other concentric ring of stiffener 330, see para. [0046]); and the die (340) having a footprint in a top- down plane view relative to the second surface (top surface) of the substrate (310A/B/C), wherein the first and second stiffeners (concentric rings of stiffener 330) are entirely outside of the footprint of the die (340, para. [0025] discloses that the stiffener is used in the outer areas of the package, i.e. outside of the footprint of the die, that are especially prone to warpage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Pon into the teachings of Lim to include the two-part, concentric stiffeners entirely outside of the footprint of the die for the purpose of providing structural support to different parts of the core of the package, especially those outside of the die which are more prone to warpage (Pon, para. [0025]).
Lim does not disclose wherein a thickness of the core is between 0.1 millimeters and 1.4 millimeters.
Hsu discloses, however, a core (“support member” 26, para. [0104]), wherein a thickness of the core (26) is between 0.1 millimeters and 1.4 millimeters (between 0.05 and 1.5 mm, see para. [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Hsu into the teachings of Lim and Pon to include the core having a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1.4 mm for the purpose of increasing rigidity which decreases warpage, while also keeping the core thin enough to where the pitch between through holes still achieves desirable wiring density (Hsu, para. [0011]-[0012]).
Note that the range disclosed by Hsu overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness of a core layer in a substrate to be a result effective variable affecting warpage mitigation and wiring density. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Hsu to have the thickness of the core layer within the claimed range in order to mitigate warpage and provide desired wiring density, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Lim discloses wherein the first stiffener (330) is a continuous ring along a perimeter of the core (320, see Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 15, Lim discloses wherein a material of the first stiffener (330) includes silicon, glass, a metal, an amorphous metal alloy, or a ceramic (copper, see col. 4, lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 17, Lim discloses a method for fabricating a microelectronic assembly (Figures 1 and 3A), the method comprising:
forming a first stiffener (330) in a core (320) of a substrate (300 in Figure 3A, 108 in Figure 1, col. 4 lines 22-25 discloses that the substrate 300 is a more detailed perspective of the package substrate 108 of Figure 1), wherein;
the substrate (300) includes a first surface (lower surface) and an opposing second surface (upper surface),
the core (320) is disposed between the first surface (lower surface) and the second surface (upper surface) of the substrate (300, see Figure 1),
the core (320) has a third surface (lower surface) and an opposing fourth surface (upper surface),
the first stiffener (330) extending between the third surface (lower surface) and the fourth surface (upper surface) of the core (320, see Figure 3A), and
the first stiffener (330) is along a perimeter of the core (320) of the substrate (300, see Figure 4A);
electrically coupling a die (102) to the second surface (upper surface) of the substrate (300, see Figure 1 and col. 3 lines 49-52),
Lim does not disclose forming a second stiffener in the core extending between the third surface and the fourth surface of the core, wherein the second stiffener is along a perimeter of the core and is separated from and concentric with the first stiffener; and the die having a footprint in a top- down plane view relative to the second surface of the substrate, wherein the first and second stiffeners are entirely outside of the footprint of the die.
Pon discloses in Figure 3C and para. [0046], however, a first and second stiffener (330, formed as concentric rings, see para. [0046]) in the core (310B) extending between the third surface (lower surface) and the fourth surface (upper surface) of the core (310B), wherein the second stiffener (one of the concentric rings of stiffener 330) is along a perimeter of the core (310B) and is separated from and concentric with the first stiffener (other concentric ring of stiffener 330, see para. [0046]); and the die (340) having a footprint in a top- down plane view relative to the second surface (top surface) of the substrate (310A/B/C), wherein the first and second stiffeners (concentric rings of stiffener 330) are entirely outside of the footprint of the die (340, para. [0025] discloses that the stiffener is used in the outer areas of the package, i.e. outside of the footprint of the die, that are especially prone to warpage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Pon into the teachings of Lim to include the two-part, concentric stiffeners entirely outside of the footprint of the die for the purpose of providing structural support to different parts of the core of the package, especially those outside of the die which are more prone to warpage (Pon, para. [0025]).
Lim does not disclose a thickness of the core is between 0.1 millimeters and 1.4 millimeters.
Hsu discloses, however, a core (“support member” 26, para. [0104]), and a thickness of the core (26) is between 0.1 millimeters and 1.4 millimeters (between 0.05 and 1.5 mm, see para. [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Hsu into the teachings of Lim and Pon to include the core having a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1.4 mm for the purpose of increasing rigidity which decreases warpage, while also keeping the core thin enough to where the pitch between through holes still achieves desirable wiring density (Hsu, para. [0011]-[0012]).
Note that the range disclosed by Hsu overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness of a core layer in a substrate to be a result effective variable affecting warpage mitigation and wiring density. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Hsu to have the thickness of the core layer within the claimed range in order to mitigate warpage and provide desired wiring density, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Lim discloses wherein a material of the first stiffener (330) includes silicon, glass, a metal, an amorphous metal alloy, or a ceramic (copper, see col. 4, lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 19, Lim discloses wherein the first stiffener (330) is a continuous ring along a perimeter of the core (320, see Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 22, Pon discloses wherein the second stiffener (one of the concentric rings of stiffener 330, para. [0046]) is a continuous ring along a perimeter of the core (310B, see Figure 3C).
Regarding claim 23, Lim discloses wherein a material of the core (320) includes glass, a fiber- reinforced epoxy, an organic dielectric material, a phenolic resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon, or a polymide resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon (bismaleimide triazine, which is an organic dielectric material, see col. 4, lines 45-48).
Regarding claim 24, Lim discloses wherein a material of the core (320) includes glass, a fiber- reinforced epoxy, an organic dielectric material, a phenolic resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon, or a polymide resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon (bismaleimide triazine, which is an organic dielectric material, see col. 4, lines 45-48).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, Pon, and Hsu as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (“Lin” US 2016/0366762).
Regarding claim 21, Pon does not explicitly disclose wherein a material of the second stiffener (one of the concentric rings of stiffener 330, para. [0046]) includes glass, silicon, a metal, a metal alloy, or a ceramic.
Lin discloses, however, a metal, ceramic, and composite of metal material of a stiffener (20, see para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Lin into the teachings of Lim, Pon, and Hsu to include a metal, ceramic, or metal alloy material for the stiffener because of its mechanical robustness (Lin, para. [0065]) and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 17 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.
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 Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights