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 with respect to claims presented have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Degani et al. (US5473512A).
Regarding claim 1, annotated Fig.1 of Degani teaches a dual sided molded package comprising:
a substrate 200 (col.3, lines 40-41) having a first side and an opposite second side;
a plurality of pads 221/222/223/224 (col.6, lines 19 and 33) attached to the second side of the substrate 200 and including one or more first pads 221/224 (col.6, line 19) having a first width (see annotated Fig.1) and one or more second pads 222/223 (col.6, line 33) having a second width (see annotated Fig.1) that is smaller than the first width; and
a plurality of electrically conductive interconnect members 201/202/203/204 (col.6, line 46) attached to the plurality of pads 221/222/223/224 and including one or more first interconnect members 201/204 (col.6, line 46) attached to the one or more first pads 221/224 and having a third width (wherein third is equal to second width W2) and one or more second interconnect members 202/203 (col.6, line 46) attached to the one or more second pads 222/223 and having a fourth width (see annotated Fig.1), third width being smaller than the first width and the fourth width being substantially equal to the second width (see annotated Fig.1).
Annotated Fig.1
PNG
media_image1.png
538
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Degani further teaches the dual sided molded package of claim 1 wherein the third width is substantially equal to the fourth width (wherein third and fourth widths are equal to second width W2).
Regarding claim 3, Degani further teaches the dual sided molded package of claim 1 further comprising a shielded package 300 (col.3, line 3) attached to or formed on the first side of the substrate 200 (col.3, lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 21, annotated Fig.1 of Degani teaches a dual sided molded package comprising:
a substrate 200 (col.3, lines 40-41) having a first side and an opposite second side;
a plurality of pads 221/222/223/224 (col.6, lines 19 and 33) attached to the second side of the substrate 200 and including one or more first pads 221/224 (col.6, line 19) having a first width (see annotated Fig.1) and one or more second pads 222/223 (col.6, line 33) having a second width (see annotated Fig.1) that is smaller than the first width; and
a plurality of electrically conductive interconnect members 201/202/203/204 (col.6, line 46) attached to the plurality of pads 221/222/223/224 and including one or more first interconnect members 201/204 (col.6, line 46) attached to the one or more first pads 221/224 (col.6, line 19) and having a third width (wherein third is equal to second width W2) and one or more second interconnect members 202/203 (col.6, line 46) attached to the one or more second pads 222/223 (col.6, line 33) and having a fourth width (wherein third is equal to second width W2), the third width being substantially equal to the first width and the fourth width being substantially equal to the second width (see annotated Fig.1).
Regarding claim 22, Degani further teaches the dual sided molded package of claim 21 wherein the third width is substantially equal to the fourth width (wherein third and fourth widths are equal to second width W2).
Regarding claim 23, Degani further teaches the dual sided molded package of claim 21 further comprising a shielded package 300 (col.3, line 3) attached to or formed on the first side of the substrate 200 (col.3, lines 40-41).
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.
Claims 4-6, 8-13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degani et al. (US5473512A) in view of Chen et al. (US20180096951A1).
Regarding claim 4, Degani does not teach wherein the dual sided molded package of claim 3 further comprising a second package attached to or formed on the second side of the substrate and disposed between two or more of the plurality of interconnect members.
Fig.17 of Chen teaches a dual-sided package 100 with a semiconductor die 104 that is mounted under a packaging substrate 402; the semiconductor die 104 can be a die having one or more LNAs and one or more switches (para.0156).
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 semiconductor die of Chen in the teachings of Degani in order to provide more RF amplifiers, low-noise amplifiers (LNAs) and switches which can be configured to facilitate transmission and reception of RF signals (Chen, [para.0155]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further teaches the dual sided molded package of claim 4 wherein the second package 104 (para.0155) is overmolded.
Regarding claim 6, Degani does not teach wherein the substrate has a square or rectangular shape in plan view, the first pads located at or proximate one or more corners of the substrate.
Fig.6B of Chen teaches a dual-sided package 100 with a shielded package 102; shielded package 102 has inner and outer rows of solder balls 106a and 106b which form a full perimeter on the underside of the shielded package 102 (para.0087).
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 inner and outer rows of solder balls that form full perimeter, as taught by Chen, in order to provide shielding functionality (Chen, [para.0087]).
Regarding claim 8, annotated Fig.1 of Degani teaches a wireless device comprising:
a circuit board 100 (col.6, line 28) having a plurality of metal pads 101/102/103/104 (col.6, line 38) with a uniform surface area; and
a dual sided molded package mounted on the circuit board 100, the dual sided molded package including a substrate 200 (col.3, lines 40-41) having a first side and an opposite second side, a plurality of pads 221/222/223/224 (col.6, lines 19 and 33) attached to the second side of the substrate 200 and including one or more first pads 221/224 (col.6, line 19) having a first width (see annotated Fig.1) and one or more second pads 222/223 (col.6, line 33) having a second width (see annotated Fig.1) that is smaller than the first width, and a plurality of electrically conductive interconnect members 201/202/203/204 (col.6, line 46) attached to the plurality of pads 221/222/223/224 and including one or more first interconnect members 201/204 (col.6, line 46) attached to the one or more first pads 221/224 (col.6, line 19) and having a third width (wherein third is equal to second width W2) and one or more second interconnect members 202/203 (col.6, line 46) attached to the one or more second pads 222/223 (col.6, line 33) and having a fourth width wherein fourth width is equal to second width W2), the third width being smaller than the first width and the fourth width being substantially equal to the second width,
the first interconnect members 201/204 and the second interconnect members 202/203 being connected to the plurality of metal pads 101/102/103/104 of the circuit board 100.
Degani does not teach wherein the third width and the fourth width being substantially equal to the uniform surface area of the plurality of metal pads.
Fig.2 of Chen teaches a dual-sided package 100 that is attached to circuit board 110 using the solder ball 106. The solder ball 106 may be attached to the circuit board 110 (e.g., may be installed, mounted, fixed, etc., to the circuit board 110) via connection 116. As illustrated in the close-up view of the solder ball 106, the connection 116 may include solder material 121 and pad 119; wherein the width of pad 119 is substantially equal to the uniform surface area of solder ball 106 (para.0068).
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 pad of Chen, which has the same width as the solder ball, in the teachings of Degani in order to uniformly hold the solder material 121 that is melted from the solder ball 106 the pad 119 when the dual-sided package 100 is attached to the circuit board (Chen, [para.0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Degani further teaches the wireless device of claim 8 wherein the third width is substantially equal to the fourth width (wherein third and fourth widths are equal to second width W2).
Regarding claim 10, Degani further teaches the wireless device of claim 8 further comprising a shielded package 300 (col.3, line 3) attached to or formed on the first side of the substrate 200 (col.3, lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 11, Degani does not teach wherein the wireless device of claim 10 further comprising a second package attached to or formed on the second side of the substrate and disposed between two or more of the plurality of interconnect members.
Fig.17 of Chen teaches a dual-sided package 100 with a semiconductor die 104 that is mounted under a packaging substrate 402; the semiconductor die 104 can be a die having one or more LNAs and one or more switches (para.0156).
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 semiconductor die of Chen in the teachings of Degani in order to provide more RF amplifiers, low-noise amplifiers (LNAs) and switches which can be configured to facilitate transmission and reception of RF signals (Chen, [para.0155]).
Regarding claim 12, Chen further teaches the wireless device of claim 11 wherein the second package 104 (para.0155) is overmolded.
Regarding claim 13, Degani does not teach wherein the substrate has a square or rectangular shape in plan view, the first pads located at or proximate one or more corners of the substrate.
Fig.6B of Chen teaches a dual-sided package 100 with a shielded package 102; shielded package 102 has inner and outer rows of solder balls 106a and 106b which form a full perimeter on the underside of the shielded package 102 (para.0087).
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 inner and outer rows of solder balls that form full perimeter, as taught by Chen, in order to provide shielding functionality (Chen, [para.0087]).
Regarding claim 24, Degani does not teach wherein the substrate has a square or rectangular shape in plan view, the first pads located at or proximate one or more corners of the substrate.
Fig.6B of Chen teaches a dual-sided package 100 with a shielded package 102; shielded package 102 has inner and outer rows of solder balls 106a and 106b which form a full perimeter on the underside of the shielded package 102 (para.0087).
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 inner and outer rows of solder balls that form full perimeter, as taught by Chen, in order to provide shielding functionality (Chen, [para.0087]).
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degani et al. (US5473512A) in view of Kuo et al. (US20190348379A1).
Regarding claim 7, Degani does not teach wherein the pads have a square shape in plan view.
Fig.1C of Kuo discloses wherein chip 101 is inverted to bring the solder dots down onto connectors (e.g., connector pad 105) on the underlying electronics or circuit board 104; wherein connector pads 105 have square shapes (para.0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pads of Degani be square as taught by Kuo because a pad having a square shape is known to be receptive to solder (Kuo, para.0002) and mere changes not affecting the function is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 25, Degani does not teach wherein the pads have a square shape in plan view.
Fig.1C of Kuo discloses wherein chip 101 is inverted to bring the solder dots down onto connectors (e.g., connector pad 105) on the underlying electronics or circuit board 104; wherein connector pads 105 have square shapes (para.0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pads of Degani be square as taught by Kuo because a pad having a square shape is known to be receptive to solder (Kuo, para.0002) and mere changes not affecting the function is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degani et al. (US5473512A) in view of Chen et al. (US20180096951A1) and in further view of Kuo et al. (US20190348379A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Degani and Chen does not teach wherein the pads have a square shape in plan view.
Fig.1C of Kuo discloses wherein chip 101 is inverted to bring the solder dots down onto connectors (e.g., connector pad 105) on the underlying electronics or circuit board 104; wherein connector pads 105 have square shapes (para.0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pads of Degani, as modified by Chen, be square as taught by Kuo because a pad having a square shape is known to be receptive to solder (Kuo, para.0002) and mere changes not affecting the function is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
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 VINCENT KIPKEMOI RONO whose telephone number is (571)270-5977. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)272-1731. 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.
VINCENT KIPKEMOI. RONO
Examiner
Art Unit 2891
/V.K.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891