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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to an Office action mailed on 02/11/2026 ("02-11-26 OA") and the telephonic interview held on 05/06/2026 (see Examiner Interview Summary for details), the Applicant substantively amended claims 1-10 and 12-20 on 05/08/2026 ("05-08-26 Response").
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to the independent claims 1, 7 and 10 have overcome the prior-art rejections based on Koyabashi set forth starting on page 4 under line item number 1 of the 02-11-26 OA.
Applicant's amendments to the independent claims 1, 7 and 10 have overcome the prior-art rejections based on Lin set forth starting on page 10 under line item number 2 of the 02-11-26 OA.
Applicant's amendments to the independent claims 1 and 10 have overcome the prior-art rejections based on Kawabata set forth starting on page 15 under line item number 3 of the 02-11-26 OA.
Substantive-amendments to the independent claims 1, 7 and 10 required further consideration and updated search. New grounds of rejection are provided below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the amended feature of “two or more compliant elastomer bodies laterally spaced apart from each other and molded to surround at least one conductor of the at least two conductors” of the independent claims 1, 7 and 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It appears from the intrinsic record that the elastomer body is a single entity that surrounds a conductor. For example, Fig. 2B shows a cross-sectional view that show the elastomer body 215. Fig. 2B, however, does not support the amended feature of the elastomer bodies being two or more such that that each conductor is surrounded by two or more elastomer bodies. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement, because the amended feature of “two or more compliant elastomer bodies laterally spaced apart from each other and molded to surround at least one conductor of the at least two conductors” is not supported by the original disclosure. Paragraph [0039] of the Specification discloses that “The elastomer layer 115 may have an elastomer body 120 formed from a compliant or flexible material…” Paragraphs [0040] and [0041] do not support the amended feature of the elastomer layer being two or more compliant elastomer bodies laterally spaced apart from each other. It does appear that a cross-sectional view of Fig. 2B shows each of the conductors 210a-210f being surrounded by an elastomer body 215.
Claims 2-6 are rejected, because they depend from the rejected independent claim 1.
Independent claim 7 fails to comply with the written description requirement for the same reason that the independent claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected, because they depend from the rejected independent claim 7.
Independent claim 10 fails to comply with the written description requirement for the same reason that the independent claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 11-20 are rejected, because they depend from the rejected independent claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Section 2173.02.I. of the MPEP provides the following guidance on how pre-issuance claims under examination are construed differently than patented claims:
Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. While "absolute precision is unattainable" in patented claims, the definiteness requirement "mandates clarity." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 527 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129, 110 USPQ2d 1688, 1693 (2014). A court will not find a patented claim indefinite unless the claim interpreted in light of the specification and the prosecution history fails to "inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty." Id. at 1689.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office does not interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Office construes claims by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of what the applicant intends to claim. Such claim construction during prosecution may effectively result in a lower threshold for ambiguity than a court's determination. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1323-24, 110 USPQ2d at 1796-97 (Plager, J., concurring). However, applicant has the ability to amend the claims during prosecution to ensure that the meaning of the language is clear and definite prior to issuance or provide a persuasive explanation (with evidence as necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)( claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution "to facilitate sharpening and clarifying the claims at the application stage"); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Here, the independent claim 1 is indefinite, because it is unclear how the “two or more compliant elastomer bodies are laterally spaced apart from each other” and still be “molded to surround at least one conductor”
Claims 2-6 are indefinite, because they depend from the indefinite independent claim 1.
Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reason that the independent claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 8 and 9 are indefinite, because they depend from the indefinite independent claim 7.
Independent claim 10 is indefinite for the same reason that the independent claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 11-20 are indefinite, because they depend from the indefinite independent claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2006/0208357 A1 to Meyer et al. (“Meyer”).
Fig. 2 of has been provided to support the rejection below:
PNG
media_image2.png
258
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
280
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Meyer teaches a substrate (see Fig. 2; see also Figs. 3 and 4.) comprising:
one or more interconnects 13, 14 or 24 (para [0038] - “…landing pads 13…contact pads 14”; para [0047] - “redistribution layer 24”); and
an elastomer layer 15, 15 (There are two elastic bumps in the second region R2 on the right side of the cross-sectional view shown in Fig. 2. para [0040] - “The elastic bumps may be made from a resilient material such as silicone, for example, and provided in a conical shape such that a contacting tip is formed. As silicone is typically non-conductive, a conductive wiring 19 is provided which leads from the tip 15A of the silicone bump 15 to a respective contact point 16 of the Flip-Chip device 10. The conductive wiring 19 may contain graphite or other conductive material which is highly resistive against deformation.”) comprising at least two conductors 19, 19, wherein the at least two conductors 19, 19 that are configured to couple a corresponding interconnect 13 or 14 or 24 of the one or more interconnects 13, 14 or 24 of the substrate to a circuit board 11 (para [0038] - “a printed circuit board 11”) , the at least two conductors 19, 19 being formed by filling one or more holes that pass through a corresponding compliant elastomer body 15 from one 13 or 14 or 24 of the interconnects 13, 14 or 24 to a surface of the elastomer layer 15, 15 (A limitation of “formed by filling” does not structurally distinguish the claimed substrate over the substrate taught by Meyer, because it is directed to a process of how a substrate is made. Meyer teaches the conductive wiring 19 that is embedded in the elastic bumps 15 and taking up space or hole in the elastic bumps.), the elastomer layer 15, 15 comprising two or more compliant elastomer bodies 15, 15 laterally spaced apart from each other and molded to surround at least one conductor 19 of the two conductors 19, 19, wherein each of the two or more compliant elastomer bodies 15, 15 are formed as a post, a bump or a pin having comprising a predictable shape to provide predictable signal integrity performance at the substrate to an interface of the circuit board 11 (A limitation of “the compliant elastomer body comprising a predictable shape to provide predictable signal integrity performance at the substrate to an interface of the circuit board” does not structurally distinguish the claimed substrate over the substrate taught by Meyer, because it is directed to an intended use of the compliant elastomer body).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer teaches the two or more compliant elastomer bodies 15, 15 that are non-conductive.
Regarding claim 5, Meyer teaches the elastomer layer 15, 15 that is formed from at least one of silicone or rubber.
Regarding independent claim 7, Meyer teaches a semiconductor package (see Fig. 4C-4E; see also Fig. 2) comprising:
a first die 20 (para [0047] - ‘”chip 20”; para [0040] - “Flip-Chip device 10”); and
a substrate 23, 23, 29, 29, 26 (para [0047] - “…a redistribution layer 24…elastic silicone bumps 23. The redistribution wiring 26 includes the conductive wiring 29…”; coupled to the first die 20, the substrate 24, 23, 29 comprising one or more interconnects 26 and an elastomer layer 23, 23 comprising two conductors 29, 29, wherein the at least two conductors 29, 29 are configured to couple a corresponding interconnect 26 of one or more interconnects 26 of the substrate 23, 23, 29, 29, 26 to a circuit board 11 (para [0041] - “printed circuit board 11”), the at least two conductors 29, 29 being formed by filling one or more holes that pass through a corresponding compliant elastomer body 23 from one of the interconnects 26 to a surface of the elastomer layer 23, 23 (A limitation of “formed by filling” does not structurally distinguish the claimed substrate over the substrate taught by Meyer, because it is directed to a process of how a substrate is made. Meyer teaches the conductive wiring 29 that is embedded in the elastic bumps 23 and taking up space or hole in the elastic bumps.), the elastomer layer 23, 23 comprising two or more compliant elastomer bodies 23, 23 laterally spaced apart from each other and molded to surround at least one conductor 29 of the least two conductors 29, 29, wherein each of the two or more compliant elastomer bodies 23, 23 are formed as a post, a bump or a pin having a predictable shape to provide predictable signal integrity performance at the substrate to an interface of the circuit board (A limitation of “the compliant elastomer body comprising a predictable shape to provide predictable signal integrity performance at the substrate to an interface of the circuit board” does not structurally distinguish the claimed substrate over the substrate taught by Meyer, because it is directed to an intended use of the compliant elastomer body).
Regarding claim 9, Meyer teaches the elastomer layer 15, 15 that is formed from at least one of silicone or rubber.
Regarding independent claim 10, Meyer teaches a method (see Fig. 2; see also Figs. 3 and 4. The method claim 10 has been recited for the structure of the substrate as there are not distinct method steps that are being recited.) comprising:
forming a substrate comprising
(i) one or more interconnects 13, 14 or 24 (para [0038] - “…landing pads 13…contact pads 14”; para [0047] - “redistribution layer 24”) and
(ii) an elastomer layer 15, 15 (There are two elastic bumps in the second region R2 on the right side of the cross-sectional view shown in Fig. 2. para [0040] - “The elastic bumps may be made from a resilient material such as silicone, for example, and provided in a conical shape such that a contacting tip is formed. As silicone is typically non-conductive, a conductive wiring 19 is provided which leads from the tip 15A of the silicone bump 15 to a respective contact point 16 of the Flip-Chip device 10. The conductive wiring 19 may contain graphite or other conductive material which is highly resistive against deformation.”), the elastomer layer 15, 15 comprising at least two conductors 19, 19, wherein the at least two conductors 19, 19 is formed to couple a corresponding interconnect 13 or 14 or 24 of the one or more interconnects 13, 14 or 24 of the substrate to a circuit board 11 (para [0038] - “a printed circuit board 11”) via at least one conductor 19 of the at least two conductors 19, 19, the at least two conductors 19, 19 being formed by filling one or more holes that pass through a corresponding compliant elastomer body 15 from one 13 or 14 or 24 of the interconnects 13, 14 or 24 to a surface of the elastomer layer 15, 15 (A limitation of “formed by filling” does not structurally distinguish the claimed substrate over the substrate taught by Meyer, because it is directed to a process of how a substrate is made. Meyer teaches the conductive wiring 19 that is embedded in the elastic bumps 15 and taking up space or hole in the elastic bumps.), the elastomer layer 15, 15 comprising two or more compliant elastomer bodies 15, 15 laterally spaced apart from each other and molded to surround at least one conductor 19 of the two conductors 19, 19, wherein each of the two or more compliant elastomer bodies 15, 15 are formed as a post, a bump or a pin having comprising a predictable shape to provide predictable signal integrity performance at the substrate to an interface of the circuit board 11 (A limitation of “the compliant elastomer body comprising a predictable shape to provide predictable signal integrity performance at the substrate to an interface of the circuit board” does not structurally distinguish the claimed substrate over the substrate taught by Meyer, because it is directed to an intended use of the compliant elastomer body).
Regarding claim 11, Meyer teaches the one or more interconnects 13 or the circuit board 11 comprises one or more solid pad connections 14.
Regarding claim 13, Meyer teaches the two or more compliant elastomer bodies 15, 15 that are non-conductive.
Regarding claim 15, Meyer teaches the elastomer layer 15, 15 that is formed from at least one of silicone.
Regarding claim 20, Meyer teaches the two or more compliant elastomer bodies 15, 15 of the elastomer layer 15, 15 that are formed on a surface of one or more first layers of the substrate and extend along an axis parallel to a plane defined by the surface of the one or more first layers of the substrate (see Fig. 2; see also Figs. 3 and 4).
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 MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 20 May 2026
Prosecution Insights