DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments/RCE filed on July 8, 2026. 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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 8, 2026, has been entered. Accordingly, pending in this office action are claims 1, 3-25. Claims 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR .1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 2 is canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khaw (US 7,372,134).
With respect to Claim 1, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) all aspects of the current invention including an apparatus (1) comprising:
a first substrate (14), a second substrate (16) on top of the first substrate, the second substrate having a perimeter
a barrier (18) on the first substrate and in contact with the second substrate, wherein at least a portion of the barrier is outside of the perimeter of the second substrate
an underfill (26) between and in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate, the underfill surrounding less than an entirety of the perimeter of the second substrate
wherein the underfill is directly physically coupled with at least a portion of the barrier
With respect to Claim 3, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein the underfill includes a selected one or more of an epoxy resin, a silica filler, and/or additives.
With respect to Claim 4, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein a material composition of the underfill is different than a material composition of the barrier (column 2 lines 65-67).
With respect to Claim 5, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein the barrier includes a plurality of barriers.
With respect to Claim 6, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein each of the plurality of barriers are separated by the underfill.
With respect to Claim 7, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein a first of the plurality of barriers is placed at a first edge of the second substrate, and wherein a second of the plurality of barriers is placed at a second edge of the second substrate opposite the first edge.
With respect to Claim 10, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein the second substrate is a portion of a die.
With respect to Claim 11, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein the barrier slows a portion of the underfill when the underfill is inserted between the first substrate and the second substrate.
With respect to Claim 12, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein the barrier is positioned on the first substrate based on a direction of flow of the underfill when the underfill is inserted between the first substrate and the second substrate.
With respect to Claim 13, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein the first substrate, and the second substrate are physically coupled by one or more solder connections
With respect to Claim 14, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) wherein there are no voids in the underfill between the first substrate and the second substrate.
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 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.
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.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaw (US 7,372,134) in view of Lee (US 2006/0163749).
With respect to Claim 8, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) most aspects of the current invention. However, Khaw does not show wherein a direction of flow of the underfill when the underfill is inserted between the first substrate and the second substrate is from a third edge of the second substrate that is substantially perpendicular to the first edge of the second substrate and to the second edge of the second substrate.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches (Fig. 3D,4) a system comprising a first substrate (40), a second substrate (32) on top of the first substrate, the second substrate having a perimeter, a barrier (46) on the first substrate, an underfill (42) between and in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the barrier includes a plurality of barriers and further wherein a direction of flow of the underfill when the underfill is inserted between the first substrate and the second substrate is from a third edge of the second substrate that is substantially perpendicular to the first edge of the second substrate and to the second edge of the second substrate (see Fig 4). Lee teaches multiple dam elements are adjacent to respective corners of the carrier substrate and is generally L-shaped, and are used to prevent or reduce de-lamination of dielectric layers (not shown) provided on the second substrate (par 23-24)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a direction of flow of the underfill when the underfill is inserted between the first substrate and the second substrate is from a third edge of the second substrate that is substantially perpendicular to the first edge of the second substrate and to the second edge of the second substrate in the device of Khaw, as taught by Lee because the multiple dam elements are adjacent to respective corners of the carrier substrate and is generally L-shaped, and are used to prevent or reduce de-lamination of dielectric layers (not shown) provided on the second substrate (par 23-24)
With respect to Claim 9, Khaw shows (Fig. 6) most aspects of the current invention. However, Khaw does not show wherein a third of the plurality of barriers is between the first substrate and the second substrate, and wherein at least a portion of the third of the plurality of barriers is directly physically coupled with the second substrate.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches (Fig. 3D,4) a system comprising a first substrate (40), a second substrate (32) on top of the first substrate, the second substrate having a perimeter, a barrier (46) on the first substrate, an underfill (42) between and in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the barrier includes a plurality of barriers and further wherein a third of the plurality of barriers is between the first substrate and the second substrate, and wherein at least a portion of the third of the plurality of barriers is directly physically coupled with the second substrate (see Fig 4). Lee teaches multiple dam elements are adjacent to respective corners of the carrier substrate and is generally L-shaped, and are used to prevent or reduce de-lamination of dielectric layers (not shown) provided on the second substrate (par 23-24)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a third of the plurality of barriers is between the first substrate and the second substrate, and wherein at least a portion of the third of the plurality of barriers is directly physically coupled with the second substrate in the device of Khaw, as taught by Lee because the multiple dam elements are adjacent to respective corners of the carrier substrate and is generally L-shaped, and are used to prevent or reduce de-lamination of dielectric layers (not shown) provided on the second substrate (par 23-24)
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2021/0057477) in view of Khaw (US 7,372,134).
With respect to Claim 15, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) most aspects of the current invention including a system comprising:
a first substrate (11)
a plurality of second substrates (20) on the first substrate, wherein each of the plurality of the second substrates are separated from each other by one or more channels (gaps/space between edges of the plurality of second substrates)
a barrier (4b) on the first substrate and proximate to at least one of the one or more channels, the barrier in contact with one of the plurality of second substrates (20 left), the one of the plurality of second substrates having a perimeter, wherein at least a portion of the barrier is outside of the perimeter of the second substrate
an underfill (4a) between and in contact with the first substrate, the underfill surrounding less than an entirety of the perimeter of the one of the plurality of second substrates (20 left)
However, Takagi does not show explicitly wherein the underfill is directly physically coupled with at least a portion of the barrier.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Khaw teaches (Fig. 6) a system comprising a first substrate (14), a second substrate (16) on top of the first substrate, the second substrate having a perimeter, a barrier (18) on the first substrate and in contact with the second substrate, wherein at least a portion of the barrier is outside of the perimeter of the second substrate, an underfill (26) between and in contact with the first substrate and the second substrate, and further wherein the underfill is directly physically coupled with at least a portion of the barrier. Khaw teaches the barrier is used to shield at least a portion of an active surface of the second substrate from out-gassing from underfill material and further provided at the edge in the opposing region of the first substrate and second substrate to suppress the outflow of the underfill provided between the first substrate and second substrate (column 2 lines 43-47)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the underfill is directly physically coupled with at least a portion of the barrier, in the device of Takagi, as taught by Khaw because the barrier is used to shield at least a portion of an active surface of the second substrate from out-gassing from underfill material and further provided at the edge in the opposing region of the first substrate and second substrate to suppress the outflow of the underfill provided between the first substrate and second substrate.
With respect to Claim 16, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) wherein the barrier extends across a width of at least one of the one or more channels.
With respect to Claim 17, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) wherein the barrier is a plurality of barriers (4b)
With respect to Claim 18, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) wherein at least one of the plurality of barriers is beneath one of the plurality of second substrates.
With respect to Claim 19, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) wherein at least some of the plurality of second substrates are tiles of a die
With respect to Claim 20, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) wherein a flow rate of an underfill below a first of the plurality of second substrates (substate 20) is different than a flow rate of an underfill below a second of the plurality of second substrates (substate 30).
With respect to Claim 21, Khaw teaches (Fig. 6) wherein a material composition of the underfill is different than a material composition of the barrier (column 2 lines 65-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection as shown above addresses any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imaizumi (JP 2015185567)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTON A BRASFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-0804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/Q.A.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights