DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on December 29, 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgments
Applicant’s amendments filed on December 29, 2025 in the reply to the office action mailed on October 1, 2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, pending in this office action are claim 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 Claims 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR .1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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, 3-5, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imaizumi (JP 2015185567).
With respect to Claim 1, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) all aspects of the current invention including an apparatus (1) comprising:
a first substrate (20), a second substrate (10) on top of the first substrate, the second substrate having a perimeter
a barrier (12) on the first substrate and in contact with the second substrate;
an underfill (40) 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 (see Fig. 1)
wherein the underfill is directly physically coupled with at least a portion of the barrier
With respect to Claim 3, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) wherein the underfill includes a selected one or more of an epoxy resin, a silica filler, and/or additives.
With respect to Claim 4, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) wherein a material composition of the underfill is different than a material composition of the barrier
With respect to Claim 5, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) wherein the barrier includes a plurality of barriers
With respect to Claim 10, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) wherein the second substrate is a portion of a die
With respect to Claim 11, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) 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, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) 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, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are physically coupled by one or more solder connections (30)
With respect to Claim 14, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) wherein there are no voids in the underfill between the first substrate and the second substrate.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 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;
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 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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi (US 2021/0057477).
With respect to Claim 15, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) all 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
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)
wherein the underfill is directly physically coupled with at least a portion of the barrier
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).
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 Imaizumi (JP 2015185567) in view of Lee (US 2006/0163749).
With respect to Claim 8, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) most aspects of the current invention. However, Imaizumi 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 Imaizumi, 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, Imaizumi shows (Fig. 1-2) most aspects of the current invention. However, Imaizumi 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 Imaizumi, 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)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2021/0057477) in view of Imaizumi (JP 2015185567).
With respect to Claim 21, Takagi shows (Fig. 8-10) most aspects of the current invention. However, Takagi does not show wherein a material composition of the underfill is different than a material composition of the barrier.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Imaizumi teaches (Fig. 1-2) a system comprising a first substrate (20), a second substrate (10) on top of the first substrate, the second substrate having a perimeter, a barrier (12) on the first substrate and in contact with the second substrate, an underfill (40) 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 and further wherein a material composition of the underfill is different than a material composition of the barrier. Imaizumi teaches the barrier is used to function as a dam, and to be 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.
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 material composition of the underfill is different than a material composition of the barrier, in the device of Takagi, as taught by Imaizumi because the barrier is used to function as a dam, and to be 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.
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 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 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