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 Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 07/05/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the connecting member taught by Juang reads on the amended claimed language. The amended rejection is detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juang et al. (US-20230395479-A1 – hereinafter Juang) in view of Uzoh et al. (US-20250266401-A1 – hereinafter Uzoh).
Regarding claim 1, Juang teaches an electronic device (Fig.10A 900; ¶0079), comprising:
a protective layer (Fig.10A 910 and 950; ¶0078);
a plurality of electronic units (Fig.10A 700 and 810; ¶0064 and ¶0064) disposed in the protective layer (910 and 950), wherein the plurality of electronic units (700 and 810) comprise a first electronic unit (700) and a second electronic unit (810);
a connecting member (Fig.10A 920; ¶0056) disposed on the protective layer (910 and 950), wherein the first electronic unit (700) and the second electronic unit (810) are electrically connected through the connecting member (920);
an opening (Fig.10A the gap between 700 and 810) between the first electronic unit (700) and the second electronic unit (810);
wherein the connecting member (920) has a first conductive layer (Fig.10A 924; ¶0056), and the first conductive layer (924) contacts a surface of the first electronic unit (700) and a surface of the protective layer (910 and 950) in the opening (924 is within the footprint of the opening between 700 and 810), and wherein the first electronic unit (700) has a first side (right side) extending in a first direction (horizontal direction going into the page of Fig.10A).
Juang does not teach a first anchor structure and a second anchor structure disposed in the protective layer and located in the opening between the first electronic unit and the second electronic unit;
wherein the opening has inclined sidewalls or curved sidewalls,
wherein the first conductive layer contacts a surface of the first anchor structure and a surface of the second anchor structure, and wherein the first anchor structure is in direct contact with the first side of the first electronic unit,
and wherein the first anchor structure has a first thickness T1 in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction, the first electronic unit has a second thickness T2 in the third direction, and the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 conform to the following formula:
(T2)/3 ≤ T1 ≤ T2.
Uzoh teaches an electronic unit (Fig.18 1800; ¶0085 of Uzoh) with first and second anchor structures (Fig.15 1502; ¶0079 of Uzoh) that have inclined sidewalls and are in direct contact with a side wall of the electronic unit (102 of Uzoh),
wherein the first and second anchor structures (1502 of Uzoh) have a first thickness (height) in a vertical direction perpendicular to a horizontal direction, the electronic unit (1800 of Uzoh) has a second thickness (height) in the vertical direction, and the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 conform to the following formula:
(T2)/3 ≤ T1 ≤ T2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the anchor structures of Uzoh (1502 of Uzoh) on the sidewalls of the electronic components of Juang (700 and 810 of Juang) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of stabilizing the electronic components and reducing incident damage (¶0079 of Uzoh).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned combination of Juang in view of Uzoh from claim 1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second electronic unit (810 of Juang) has a first side (left side) extending in the first direction (horizontal direction going into the page of Fig.10A of Juang), and the second anchor structure (1502 of Uzoh) is in direct contact with the first side (left side) of the second electronic unit (810 of Juang).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Juang in view of Uzoh from claim 4 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the first conductive layer (924 of Juang) is in contact with the surface of the protective layer (910 and 950 of Juang) in the opening (the opening is taught by Juang in view of Uzoh because the gap that would occur between the modified first and second electronic units would read upon this limitation).
Regarding claim 21, the aforementioned combination of Juang in view of Uzoh from claim 1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the opening has curved sidewalls.
Shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the anchor structures is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of stabilizing the electronic components and reducing incident damage (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juang in view of Uzoh, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20220406697-A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination of Juang in view of Uzoh from claim 1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first electronic unit (700 of Juang) comprises:
a chip unit (Fig.10A 700 of Juang is a chip unit), wherein the chip unit (700 of Juang) comprises a plurality of bonding pads (Fig.10A 780; ¶0062 of Juang);
a first insulating layer (Fig.10A 950; ¶0065 of Juang) disposed on the chip unit (700 of Juang).
The aforementioned combination does not teach a second insulating layer disposed between the first insulating layer and the connecting member, wherein the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer expose the plurality of bonding pads.
Kim teaches a chip (Fig.1 131; ¶0026 of Kim) having chip pads (Fig.1 133; ¶0026 of Kim), a passivation layer (Fig.1 135; ¶0026 of Kim), a second passivation layer (Fig.1 137; ¶0026 of Kim) and an interposer insulation layer (Fig.1 151a; ¶0028 of Kim).
These features are well known in the art where flip-chip connections are used, and while Juang does not explicitly teach these features, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to assume they are present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a passivation layer (135 of Kim) as a first insulating layer on the bottom side of the chip unit (700 of Juang) and surrounding the bonding pads (780 of Juang), with the underfill material (950 of Juang) being a second insulating layer. These features and arrangements thereof are simply design choices a practitioner of ordinary skill can use, as evidenced by Kim, and do not patentably distinguish claim 2 from claim 1.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juang in view of Uzoh, and further in view of Lin et al. (US-20220359422-A1 – hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination of Juang in view of Uzoh from claim 1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first anchor structure (1502 of Uzoh) has a first width W1 in the first direction (horizontal direction going into the page of Fig.10A of Juang) and the first side (right side) of the first electronic unit (700 of Juang) has a second width W2 in the first direction (horizontal direction going into the page of Fig.10A of Juang).
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first width W1 and the second width W2 conform to the following formula:
0.2 ≤ W1/W2 < 1. (W2 must be greater than W1)
Lin teaches chip structures (Fig.9B 180; ¶0060 of Lin) which are wider than corresponding anchor structures (Fig.9B 220 and 510; ¶0077 and ¶0096 of Lin) and could reasonably meet the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for a practitioner of ordinary skill to have the electronic units (700 and 810 of Juang) be wider than the anchor structures (1502 of Juang) as this is a matter of design choice and may also provide the benefit of improved heat dissipation, since the anchor structures do not need to completely surround the electronic units to achieve the desired outcome.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to form the first and second widths within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned combination of Juang in view of Uzoh, and further in view of Lin from claim 7 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 7.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first width W1 and the second width W2 conform to the following formula:
0.2 ≤ W1/W2 < 0.8. (W2 must be greater than W1)
However, it would have been obvious to form the first and second widths within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned combination of Juang in view of Uzoh from claim 1 teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1.
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the first anchor structure comprises a plurality of sub-anchor structures.
Lin teaches anchor structures (Fig.9B 220 and 510; ¶0077 and ¶0096 of Lin) that comprise a plurality of sub-anchor structures (Fig.9B of Lin).
It would have been obvious to a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include smaller sub-anchor structures (Fig.9B of Lin) instead of a single larger anchor structure (1502 of Uzoh) as taught by Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of better heat dissipation due to more exposed sidewall surface area of the electronic units (700 and 810 of Juang).
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 THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights