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 11/20/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While amended claim 13 does overcome the interpretation of primary reference US-20220271018-A1 (Chen), the broadest reasonable interpretation of both Chen and the claims allows an amended rejection to be made (see below).
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.
Claim 17 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a metal layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a metal layer” is already recited in amended claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US-20220271018-A1 – hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches an electronic device (Fig.16; ¶0075), comprising:
a substrate (Fig.16 16; ¶0075);
a patterned metal layer (Fig.16 122; ¶0045) on the substrate (16);
a metal layer (Fig.16 192) on the patterned metal layer (122);
an electronic component (Fig.16 19; ¶0075) comprising a plurality of bonding pads (Fig.16 191; ¶0069) on the metal layer (122); and
a glue (Fig.16 20; ¶0075) between the bonding pads (191).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 13, further comprising a metal layer (192) between the substrate (16) and the bonding pads (191) of the electronic component (19).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 17, further comprising a solder (Fig.16 193; ¶0069) on the metal layer (122), wherein the bonding pads (191) of the electronic component (19) are on the solder (193).
Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the glue (16) surrounds the bonding pads (191) from a top view of the electronic device (¶0082).
Regarding claim 20, Chen teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the glue (16) surrounds the electronic component (19) from a top view of the electronic device (¶0014).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 13.
Chen does not teach wherein the glue has a thickness ranging from 50 microns to 600 microns.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness 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)).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Vadhavkar (US-20200098965-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 13.
Chen does not teach wherein the glue has a Young's modulus ranging from 1 MPa to 100 MPa.
Vadhavkar teaches an underfill material that is optically clear silicone (¶0030 of Vadhavkar).
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 silicone based material of Vadhavkar (¶0030 of Vadhavkar) as the underfill material for the underfill of Chen (20 of Chen) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing thermal expansion or contraction of the underfill material (¶0030).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 13.
Chen does not teach wherein the glue comprises white glue, optical glue or waterproof glue.
Vadhavkar teaches an underfill material that is optically clear silicone (¶0030 of Vadhavkar).
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 silicone based material of Vadhavkar (¶0030 of Vadhavkar) as the underfill material for the underfill of Chen (20 of Chen) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing thermal expansion or contraction of the underfill material (¶0030).
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
/RATISHA MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817