Attorney’s Docket Number: AE2002-US 111079-270637
Filing Date: 06/24/2022
Claimed Priority Date: N/A
Applicant: Nagarajan
Examiner: Aneesa Baig
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the Amendment filed on 12/032025.
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgment
The Amendment filed on 12/03/2025, responding to the Office action mailed on 09/04/2025, has been entered. Applicant cancelled claims 21-22 and amended claim 1,2,13,23. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-20,23-25.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments to the Claims have overcome the respective claim objections and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 103 and 102, as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 09/04/2025. However, some of the previously presented prior art remains relevant, and new grounds for rejection are presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2,3,4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Stearns et al (US 6160705 A, Hereinafter Stearns).
Regarding Claim 1, Stearns (e.g., Col 5,6,7 Fig 3-6, ) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including, an electronic package (e.g., BGA package) comprising:
a die (e.g., 28);
a package substrate coupled to the die (e.g., BGA substrate);
a ring under the package substrate (ground ring 20 with the underside of substrate being the side attached to the die), wherein the ring comprises a conductive material (e.g., made of metal layer 12 and electrically couples with other metal layer 16); and wherein the die is entirely within an outermost perimeter of the ring from a plan view perspective (e.g., Fig 3 shows die 28 within the ring perimeter. )
balls outside of the ring (e.g., Fig 3, balls 36,38).
Regarding Claim 2, Stearns (e.g., Col 5,6,7 Fig 3-6, ) shows a second ring (e.g., power ring 18) around the ring.
Regarding Claim 3, Stearns (e.g., Col 7, lines 1-10 Fig 6, ) shows a second ring (e.g., power ring 18) has segments (e.g., interruptions 19)
Regarding Claim 4, Stearns (e.g., Col 7, lines 1-10 Fig 6, ) shows the segments may be couple to different power rails (e.g., “power ring 18 may be split into segments as dictated by the electrical needs and the layout of die 28”)
Regarding Claim 6, Stearns (e.g., Col 5,6,7 Fig 3-6, ) shows the ring is grounded (e.g., connected to ground plane layer 16).
Claims 1, 2,3,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Huang et al (US 20020034066 A1, Hereinafter Huang).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang (e.g., Fig 2-5 ) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including, an electronic package (e.g., BGA package) comprising:
a die (e.g., 240);
a package substrate coupled to the die (e.g., substrate 202);
a ring under the package substrate (thermal dissipation ring 270, Fig 5), wherein the ring comprises a conductive material (e.g., made of thermal conductive material [0028]); and wherein the die is entirely within an outermost perimeter of the ring from a plan view perspective (e.g., die 240 is withing 270 perimeter Fig 5 )
balls outside of the ring (e.g., balls 224 are outside of the ring).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang shows a second ring around the fir33st ring (First square ring of balls around 270).
Regarding Claim 3, Huang shows the second ring is comprised of segments (the ring is composed of several balls, or segments of balls).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang shows the segments being more than five ( more than five balls comprising second ring).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Yow et al (US 20180114748 A1, Hereinafter Yow).
Regarding Claim 1, Yow (e.g., Fig 3A/3B Fig 4A/4B [0016]-[0022]) shows an electronic package, comprising:
a die (e.g., 108);
a package substrate coupled to the die (e.g., 102);
a ring under the package substrate (Power ring 142), wherein the ring comprises a conductive material (e.g., “power ring 142 may be formed using solder”); and wherein the die is entirely within an outermost perimeter of the ring from a plan view perspective (e.g., Fig 3B)
balls outside of the ring (e.g., 144 “signal pads 144 may be formed using solder or solder balls”).
Claims 1,7,8,11,12,13, 14, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Yeh et al (US 9899305 B1, Hereinafter Yeh).
Regarding Claim 1, Yeh (e.g., col 6, line 5-col 8 line 40 Fig 3,4 ) shows an electronic package, comprising:
a die (e.g., 30a);
a package substrate coupled to the die (e.g., 20);
a ring under the package substrate (back side stiffeners 4a “tetragonal ring-like structures”), wherein the ring comprises a conductive material (e.g., Col4, line 60, stiffener may include metals); and wherein the die is entirely within an outermost perimeter of the ring from a plan view perspective (e.g., Fig 4 shows dashed line of 30a to be within the outside perimeter of 401a)
balls outside of the ring (e.g., Fig 4, 60).
Regarding Claim 7, Yeh shows two dies on the substrate (30a and 30b)
Regarding Claim 8, Yeh shows the dies (30a and 30b may be passive “30a and 30b may be a single chip, a three-dimensional (3D) IC or any other semiconductor component such as a passive component”)
Regarding Claim 11, Yeh shows balls (e.g., electrically conductive bumps 60) outside the ring are functional.
Regarding Claim 12, Yeh (Fig 4, shows the outline of 30a to be partially overlapped with the stiffener ring 4a, col6, lines 50-60)
Regarding Claim 13, Yeh (e.g., col 7, line 18-col 8 line 40 Fig 5, 6) shows a package substrate, comprising:
a substrate (e.g., 20) with a first surface and a second surface opposite from the first surface;
a die coupled to the first surface of the package substrate (Die 30);
an array of balls on the second surface of the substrate, wherein the array of balls includes a cavity (e.g., Fig 5/6 shows balls 60 on a bottom surface, with a cavity in the middle);
a first ring inside the cavity (e.g., 401c) ; wherein the die is entirely within an outermost perimeter of the first ring from a plan view perspective (Die is inside the outer perimeter of 401c)
a second ring inside the cavity and around the first ring (e.g., first ring of balls see image of FIG 6 annotated); and
capacitors in the cavity (e.g., passive chip components 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Yeh (e.g., col 7, line 18-col 8 line 40 Fig 5, 6) shows the cavity is rectangular (e.g., Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Yeh shows the first ring is electrically isolated from the second ring.
Regarding Claim 16, Yeh shows the second ring (ring of balls 60) are made of many segments (balls).
Regarding Claim 19, Yeh (e.g., col 7, line 18-col 8 line 40 Fig 5, 6) shows the first row of bumps are functional (e.g., electrically conductive bumps 60).
Regarding Claim 20, Yeh (e.g., Fig 5) shows the height of the capacitor is different than the first or second ring.
Regarding Claim 23, Yeh (e.g., col 3, line 40 Fig 5, 6) shows an electronic system, comprising:
a board (e.g., (e.g., col 7, line 18-col 8 line 40 the bumps 60 may be to assemble with a PCB);
a package substrate coupled to the board, wherein the package substrate comprises:
a first ring between the package substrate and the board (e.g., 401c);
a second ring between the package substrate and the board, wherein the second ring is around the first ring (e.g., first ring of balls see image of FIG 6 annotated): and
balls between the package substrate and the board (e.g., conductive bumps 60), wherein the balls are outside of the second ring; and
a die coupled to the package substrate (e.g., 30) wherein the die is entirely within an outermost perimeter of the first ring from a plan view perspective (Die is inside the outer perimeter of 401c).
Regarding Claim 24, Yeh (e.g., col 3, line 40 Fig 5, 6) shows a plurality of capacitors (7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9,10,17,18,25 are 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 and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims filed on 12/03/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEESA RIAZ BAIG whose telephone number is (571)272-0249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, 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.
/ANEESA RIAZ BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814