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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While it is true that there are differences between the cited prior art and the Applicant’s invention as depicted in the drawings and written description, the claimed language is too broad and can still be read upon by Figure 1 of primary reference Zhong and Figures 10 and 11 of secondary reference Kim. An updated rejection including the claim amendments is detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Both claims depend either claim 7 or claim 8, which have been canceled. For prior art purposes these claims will be treated as if they depend from claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US-20200279842-A1 – hereinafter Zhong) in view of Kim et al. (US-20200312789-A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong teaches an electronic assembly (Fig.1 100; ¶0018) comprising:
a module substrate (Fig.1 102; ¶0019) including a first side (Fig.1 103; ¶0019)and a second side (Fig.1 105; ¶0019) opposite the first side (103);
a ball grid array (BGA) package (Fig.1 110; ¶0019) bonded to the first side (103) of the module substrate (102);
a first plurality of first components (Fig.1 120 top; ¶0019) bonded to the first side (103) of the module substrate (102);
a second plurality of second components (Fig.1 120 bottom; ¶0019) bonded to the second side (105) of the module substrate (102);
a stiffener structure (Fig.1 160; ¶0030) bonded to the second side (105) of the module substrate (102);
a second package (Fig.1 130; ¶0030) mounted onto the second side (105) of the module substrate (102); and
the stiffener structure (160) is shear bonded (¶0030) to the second side (105) of the module substrate (102).
Zhong does not teach wherein the stiffener structure is spanning an area directly opposite the module substrate of the BGA package, wherein the stiffener structure is frame-shaped including perimeter of outer walls and inner walls extending orthogonally from the outer walls, the outer walls and the inner walls are bonded to the second side of the module substrate and forming an opening, and the BGA package covers a larger area of the module substrate than the opening in the stiffener structure; and
wherein the second package is mounted within the opening;
wherein the second plurality of second components is outside of the stiffener structure.
Kim teaches an electronic assembly (Fig.11; ¶0072 of Kim) having a stiffener structure (Fig.11 400; ¶0047 of Kim) surrounding a BGA package (Fig.11 200; ¶0047 of Kim), the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) being a frame with outer walls (Fig.10 the outer square of 400 of Kim) and inner walls (Fig.10 the middle portion of 400 of Kim) extending orthogonally from the outer square (Fig.10 of Kim depicts this orthogonal relationship), the stiffener structure forming an opening (Fig.10 depicts an upper opening formed by the shape of 400 of Kim) and the BGA package (200 of Kim) disposed in the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the stiffener structure of Kim (400 of Kim) to surround a second BGA package of Zhong (Fig.1 130; ¶0030) on the second side (105 of Zhong) of the substrate (102 of Zhong) to arrive at the claimed invention. Due to the closeness (see Fig.11 of Kim) of the stiffener structure of Kim (400 of Kim) to the BGA package of Kim (200 of Kim), it is believed that the most reasonable location for the second plurality of second components (120 bottom of Zhong) would be outside the combined stiffener structure of Kim (400 of Kim). It is believed that due to the size of the cited opening relative to the BGA package of Kim (200 of Kim), the BGA package of Zhong would have a larger footprint. A practitioner would be motivated to make this modification for the benefit of controlling the warpage of a semiconductor package substrate (¶0002 of Kim).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) is bonded to the second side (103 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong) with a bonding material (¶0030 of Zhong).
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the bonding material is characterized by a Young's Modulus of greater than 1 GPa.
However, it would have been obvious to form the bonding material 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 14, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) is bonded to the second side (103 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong) with a bonding material (¶0030 of Zhong).
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the bonding material is characterized by a Young's Modulus of greater than 20 GPa.
However, it would have been obvious to form the bonding material 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 15, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim from claim 14 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 14, wherein the bonding material is a solder material (¶0030 of Zhong) characterized by a melting temperature between 150 °C - 190 °C (¶0049 of Elsherbini, see claim 3 rejection).
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim from claim 15 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 15, wherein the solder material (¶0030 of Zhong) is near continuous along a bottom surface of one or more of the outer walls and one or more of the inner walls (this claim is broad enough to be met due to how the inner portion meets the outer walls of the stiffener structure 400 in Fig.10 of Kim) of the stiffener structure (400 of Kim).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Kim, and further in view of Elsherbini et al. (US-2020/0227401-A1).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the BGA package (110 of Zhong) is bonded to the first side (103 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong) with a plurality of solder joints (Fig.1 112; ¶0027 of Zhong), the first plurality of first components (120 top of Zhong) is bonded to the first side (103 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong) with a first plurality of first component solder joints (Fig.1 122 top; ¶0027 of Zhong), and the second plurality of second components (120 bottom of Zhong) is bonded to the second side (105 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong) with a second plurality of second component solder joints (Fig.1 122 bottom; ¶0027 of Zhong).
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the three pluralities of solder joints are characterized by a melting temperature greater than 200 °C.
Elsherbini teaches a device having solder joints with a melting temperature greater than 200 °C (¶0050 of Elsherbini).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the high melting point solder with a melting temperature greater than 200 °C (¶0050 of Elsherbini) for the connection between the BGA package (110 of Zhong) and the module substrate (102 of Zhong) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for higher joint integrity involving active components (like the BGA package 110 of Zhong) and a reduced risk of the joins re-melting.
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim, and further in view of Elsherbini from claim 2 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 2, wherein the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) is bonded to the second side (105 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong) with a solder material (¶0030 of Zhong).
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the solder material is characterized by a melting temperature between 150 °C - 190 °C.
Elsherbini teaches a device having solder joints with a melting temperature less than 200 °C (¶0049 of Elsherbini).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the low melting point solder with a melting temperature less than 200 °C (¶0049 of Elsherbini) for the connection between the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) and the module substrate (102 of Zhong) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for a lower soldering temperature involving inactive components (like the stiffener structure 400 of Kim) to prevent thermal degradation of the inactive components.
However, it would have been obvious to form the solder material 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 4, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim, and further in view of Elsherbini from claim 2 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 2, wherein the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) is bonded to the second side (105 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong) with thermoset material (¶0030 of Zhong).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim, and further in view of Elsherbini from claim 2 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 2.
The aforementioned combination does not explicitly teach wherein the module substrate is characterized by a maximum curvature across an area of the BGA package covering the first side of the module substrate of less than 100 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the module substrate 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 12, the aforementioned combination of Zhong in view of Kim from claim 1 teaches the electronic assembly of claim 7, wherein the second package (130 of Zhong) is mounted onto the second side (105 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong), and the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) is bonded to the second side (105 of Zhong) of the module substrate (102 of Zhong).
The aforementioned combination does not teach wherein the second package is bonded with a bonding material characterized by a melting temperature greater than 200 °C and the stiffener structure is bonded with a solder material characterized by a melting temperature between 150 °C - 190 °C.
Elsherbini teaches a device having solder joints with a melting temperature greater than 200 °C (¶0050 of Elsherbini) and;
Elsherbini teaches a device having solder joints with a melting temperature less than 200 °C (¶0049 of Elsherbini).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the high melting point solder with a melting temperature greater than 200 °C (¶0050 of Elsherbini) for the connection between the BGA package (110 of Zhong) and the module substrate (102 of Zhong) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for higher joint integrity involving active components (like the BGA package 110 of Zhong) and a reduced risk of the joins re-melting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the low melting point solder with a melting temperature less than 200 °C (¶0049 of Elsherbini) for the connection between the stiffener structure (400 of Kim) and the module substrate (102 of Zhong) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for a lower soldering temperature involving inactive components (like the stiffener structure 400 of Kim) to prevent thermal degradation of the inactive components.
Conclusion
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