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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner thanks Applicant for Applicant’s cooperation in the prosecution process and for Applicant’s concise analysis of the prior Office Action10/22/2025 (Prior Office Action) found in Applicant's Remarks. The Remarks assert that:
Bai et al. CN112992837 in view of Hsu US 2014/0118951 fail to show “a hardness of the first packaging layer is greater than a hardness of the second packaging layer”.
In regards to the above assertion, Bai teaches a first packaging layer (26 as epoxy, fig3, [61, 62]) and a second packaging layer (22 as PI, fig3, [52, 53]). It follows naturally epoxy has a hardness of greater than 80 shore D and PI has a hardness of 20-70 shore D (see teaching reference Sullivan et al. US 2011/0218055 [14] and Boissy US 2010/0218376 [43] regarding the material property). Since Bai teaches the first packaging layer of epoxy with hardness greater than 80 shore D and a second packaging layer of PI with hardness of 20-70 shore D. Bai in view of Hsu teaches the limitation of “a hardness of the first packaging layer is greater than a hardness of the second packaging layer”. Examiner therefore respectfully submits that Bai in view of Hsu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and that claim 1 stands properly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. CN112992837 in view of Hsu US 2014/0118951.
Re claim 1, Bai teaches an electronic package (fig3), comprising:
a circuit structure (23, fig3, [73]);
a first electronic element (24, fig3, [58]) disposed on and electrically connected to the circuit structure (23, fig3, [73]);
a first packaging layer (26, fig3, [61]) disposed on the circuit structure (23, fig3, [73]) and covering the first electronic element (24, fig3, [58]);
at least one conductive column (201 and 200, fig3, [52, 61]) disposed on and electrically connected to the circuit structure (23, fig3, [73]), wherein the conductive column (201 and 200, fig3, [52, 61]) has a portion inserted into the first packaging layer (200 in 26, fig3, [61), and a remaining portion (201 in layer 22, fig3, [52]) protruding from the first packaging layer (26, fig3, [61]);
a second packaging layer (22, fig3, [52]) disposed on the first packaging layer (26, fig3, [61]) and covering the remaining portion of the conductive column protruding from the first packaging layer, wherein an end surface of the conductive column (top surface of 201 above layer 22, fig3, [52]) is exposed from the second packaging layer;
wherein a hardness of the first packaging layer (26 as epoxy, fig3, [61, 62]) is greater than a hardness of the second packaging layer (22 as PI, fig3, [52, 53]; Bai, PI hardness of 20-70 shore D and epoxy hardness of greater than 80 shore D; see teaching reference Sullivan et al. US 2011/0218055 [14] and Boissy US 2010/0218376 [43]);
a routing structure (21, fig3, [65]) bonded on the second packaging layer (22, fig3, [52]) and electrically connected to the conductive column (201, fig3, [52]).
Bai does not explicitly show wherein the portion and the remaining portion of the conductive column have a same width.
Hsu teaches at least one conductive column (120 of 100, fig1 and 5, [13]) includes a portion inserted into the first packaging layer (lower part of 120 in 502, fig5, [45]), and a remaining portion (part of 120 in 110, fig1, [13]) protruding from the first packaging layer, wherein the portion and the remaining portion of the conductive column have a same width (120, fig1, [15]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bai and Hsu to replace the interposing structure 201/200 of Bai with 100 of Hsu in fig1. The motivation to do so is to improve dissipation of heat generated by the lower chip (Hsu, [38]).
Re claim 2, Bai in view of Hsu teaches the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the first electronic element (Bai, 24, fig3, [58]) and the first packaging layer (Bai, 26, fig3, [61]) are disposed on one side of the circuit structure (Bai, both 24 and 26 on top side of 23, fig3), and at least one functional element is disposed on the other side of the circuit structure (Bai, circuit bord bonded to 23 via 27, fig3, [64]).
Re claim 3, Bai in view of Hsu teaches the electronic package of claim 1, wherein the circuit structure (Bai, 23, fig3, [73]) has a first ground layer (Bai, 330, fig3, [66]), and the routing structure (Bai, 21, fig3, [65]) has a second ground layer (Bai, 310, fig3, [66]), wherein the first ground layer (Bai, 330, fig3, [66]) and the second ground layer (Bai, 310, fig3, [66]) are electrically connected to the conductive column (bai 201/200 replaced by Hsu 120 with 131 added over Bai 24, fig3, [52]).
Re claim 7, Bai in view of Hsu teaches the electronic package of claim 1, further comprising at least one second electronic element (Bai, 34, fig3, [65]) disposed on and electrically connected to the routing structure (Bai, 21, fig3, [65]).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/6/2024 is acknowledged.
As indicated in the restriction requirement:
I. Claim 1-4 and 7, drawn to an electronic package, CPC H01L 23/481.
II. Claim 8-15, drawn to a method for manufacturing an electronic package, CPC H01L 21/56.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons: the invention I can be made by another and materially different process. Instead of forming conductive column in a first packaging layer followed by forming a second packaging layer the package can be made by forming conductive column through both the first packaging layer and the second packaging layer.
“Serious burden” is a technical term specifically defined in the MPEP. For purposes of the initial requirement, appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02 may prima facie show a serious burden on the examiner. See MPEP § 803 part II. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant. In the case at hand, the examiner showed, prima facie, a “serious burden,” by an appropriate explanation of mutually exclusive characteristics of independent or distinct invention. Even though the inventions could be classified together, each invention has a separate subject for inventive effort. It is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); hence, a different field of search is required as the search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/6/2024.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: currently claim 4 include allowable matter because the closest prior art does not appear to disclose, alone or in combination, the limitations of two packaging layer made of a same material with different hardness in combination with the other required elements of claim1.
Specifically, the limitations are material to the inventive concept of the application in hand to help disperse stress when the top packaging layer is bonded onto the lower packaging layer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XIAOMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-8pm, 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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/XIAOMING LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights