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
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment of claims 1-8 and 10-17 in “Claims - 12/26/2025” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 12/26/2025”, have been acknowledged by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 12/26/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's arguments that “As shown in Fig. 5, the inductor of Kidwell (shown in the red circle) is embedded in the substrate 500. None of the conductor layers of the inductor is on a surface of the substrate 500. Fig. 8 of Kidwell also shows the inductor apparatus 814 embedded in the package substrate 804. The conductor layers of the inductor apparatus are not on a surface of the package substrate. Thus, Kidwell fails to disclose the above- referenced features of claim 1 as amended. At least because Kidwell does not disclose or suggest the above-referenced features of claim 1, claim 1 as amended is not anticipated by Kidwell. Allowance of claim 1 is respectfully requested.” Importantly, the Non-Final Rejection filed on 10/01/2025 specifically cites Figure 4 in view of Figure 8. Specifically, the Non-Final Rejection filed on 10/01/2025 cited [0080] of Kidwell that states “The inductor apparatus 814 may be the inductor apparatus 300 or may be the inductor apparatus 400 (including the first inductor 450 and the second inductor 455)”. The rejection of claims 1 and 12 cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 10/01/2025 relied upon the inductor structure in Fig. 4 in view of the Fig. 8. Thus, a first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) patterned into parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) having a first end and an opposite second end formed on a device side surface of a multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]), as the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) are on a device side surface of multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]). Furthermore, the claim does not state that the parallel strips are directly on a device side surface of multilayer package substrate. Thus, Kidwell teaches the limitations of independent claims 1 and 12.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kidwell et al. (US 20190164681 A1; hereinafter Kidwell).
Regarding claim 1, Kidwell teaches an apparatus (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 3A+; [0001+], and as cited below), comprising:
a first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) patterned into parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) having a first end and an opposite second end formed on a device side surface of a multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]), the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) comprising conductor layers ({408a, 408b, 408c, 404a, 404b, 404c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) spaced from one another by dielectric material (460; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 5; see [0048]) and coupled to one another by conductive vertical connection layers ({410a, 410b, 410c, 412a, 412b, 412c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) extending through the dielectric material (460; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 58; see [0048]);
a second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) in the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) spaced from the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) patterned into parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) having a first end and a second end, the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) coupled to the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) by vertical connectors ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) formed of the conductive vertical connection layers ({410a, 410b, 410c, 412a, 412b, 412c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) to form an inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]); and
a semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) that is spaced from and coupled to the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]).
Regarding claim 2, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell wherein the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) comprises a continuous current path (see [0040]) through the conductor layers including the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), and the vertical connectors ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]).
Regarding claim 8, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) has a rectangular shape (see Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 5, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) around a core of the dielectric material (460; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 58; see [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the dielectric material (460; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 58; see [0048, 0057]) comprises Ajinomoto Build up Film (ABF), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA), epoxy resin mold compound, or magnetic mold compound (see [0057]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kidwell et al. (US 20190164681 A1; hereinafter Kidwell), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 3, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 2.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0026, 0041, 0046-0050, 0079-0080]) comprises a continuous coil (see [0026, 0041]; solenoid, where a solenoid is a continuous coil).
In regards to the limitation “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil”, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the inductor comprises a continuous coil” is not patentable over Kidwell.
Regarding claim 4, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) (see below for “have an angled jog”) at the second end, the parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) have (see below for “a corresponding angled jog”) at the first end, and the vertical connectors ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) between the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) are connected with the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; {406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) to form the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph Claim 5 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer further comprise an angle at the second end, and wherein the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connections between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer form, with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer serially connected in a continuous coil”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor”. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the inductor” is not patentable over Kidwell.
Regarding claim 5, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) have (see below for “an angle at”) the second end, and the parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) (see below for “have a corresponding angle at”) the first end, and the vertical connectors ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) between the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the first conductor layer (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the second conductor layer (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) are connected to form a continuous coil (see [0026, 0041]; solenoid, where a solenoid is a continuous coil).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph Claim 4 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angled jog at the second end, and wherein the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angled jog at the first end, and the vertical connections between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer are serially connected with the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer to form the vertical inductor. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the parallel strips of the first conductor layer have an angle at the second end, the parallel strips of the second conductor layer have a corresponding angle at the first end, and the vertical connectors between the first conductor layer and the second conductor layer, the parallel strips of the first conductor layer and the parallel strips of the second conductor layer are connected to form a continuous coil” is not patentable over Kidwell.
Regarding claim 6, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) (see below for “is flip chip mounted to”) the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]), the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) (see below for “having conductive post connects extending from”) the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]), (see below for “the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on”) the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) (see below for “and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to”) the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph Claim 7 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads of the semiconductor die to traces on the multilayer package substrate”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is not patentable over Kidwell.
Regarding claim 7, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) (see below for “with bond pads facing away from”) the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]), (see below for “and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads”) (see below for “to traces on”) the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph Claim 6 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end, and having solder bumps on the distal end of the conductive post connects, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads to traces on the multilayer package substrate” is not patentable over Kidwell.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kidwell et al. (US 20190164681 A1; hereinafter Kidwell), in view of Liao et al. (US 20210193572 A1; hereinafter Liao).
Regarding claim 9, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) and the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) (see below for “are covered with mold compound”).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the semiconductor die and the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate are covered with mold compound”.
However, in the analogous art, Liao teaches an integrated electronic device package ([Abstract]), wherein (Fig. 1A+; [0004+]) an integrated electronic device package (100; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037-0045]), where a semiconductor die (102; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037-0039]) is formed over a third layer (114; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0038-0039]) of the package structure, where a molding compound (104; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037, 0039, 0048]) is formed over the semiconductor die (102; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037-0039]) and the third layer (114; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0038-0039]) of the package structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Liao’s molding compound into Kidwell’s device, and thereby, modified Kidwell’s (by Liao) device will have wherein the semiconductor die (Kidwell 818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) and the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate (Kidwell 806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) are covered with mold compound (in view of Liao 104; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037, 0039, 0048]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kidwell in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a molding compound laterally surrounding the semiconductor die and covering the third layer of the package structure (Liao [0037-0039, 0048]), which helps further protect the device parts and layers.
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kidwell et al. (US 20190164681 A1; hereinafter Kidwell), in view of Chong et al. (US 20180366535 A1; hereinafter Chong).
Regarding claim 11, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the conductor layers ({408a, 408b, 408c, 404a, 404b, 404c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) comprise (see below for “of copper, gold, aluminum, silver or an alloy thereof”).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the conductor layers comprise of copper, gold, aluminum, silver or an alloy thereof”.
However, in the analogous art, Chong teaches coils used for inductors and mutual coupling in integrated circuits, including use for Near Field Communication technology and in peaking inductors ([0001]), wherein (Fig. 3+; [0001+]) a vertically-aligned inductor (400; Fig. 4; [0052-0053]) includes metal layer segment (402; Fig. 4; [0052-0053]) may be from the Aluminum for bond pad layer, where Aluminum for bond pad layer for the upper metal layer segment (402; Fig. 4; [0052-0053]) results in improvement in coupling strength .
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kidwell’s conductor layer material in view of Chong’s aluminum conductor layer material, and thereby, modified Kidwell’s (by Chong) device will have wherein the conductor layers (Kidwell {408a, 408b, 408c, 404a, 404b, 404c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080] in view of Chong 402; Fig. 4; [0052-0053]; aluminum) comprise of copper, gold, aluminum, silver or an alloy thereof (in view of Chong 402; Fig. 4; [0052-0053]; aluminum).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kidwell in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides metal layer segment that may be from an Aluminum for bond pad layer, where the aluminum for bond pad layer for the upper metal layer segment results in improvement in coupling strength (Chong [0052-0053]).
6. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kidwell et al. (US 20190164681 A1; hereinafter Kidwell), in view of Liao et al. (US 20210193572 A1; hereinafter Liao).
Regarding claim 12, Kidwell teaches a microelectronic device package (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 3A+; [0001+], and as cited below), comprising:
a multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) comprising conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) spaced from one another by dielectric material (460; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 5; see [0048]), and comprising vertical connections ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) extending through the dielectric material (460; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 5; see [0048]) between the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and coupling portions of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]) having a device side surface and an opposite board side surface;
an inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]; see [0026, 0041]; solenoid, where a solenoid is a continuous coil) formed by a first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) on the device side surface and a second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) that is spaced from the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), and having the vertical connections ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) between the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]);
a semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) mounted to the device side surface) and coupled to the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]); and
(see below for “mold compound covering”) the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) and a portion of the device side surface (Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “mold compound covering the semiconductor die and a portion of the device side surface”.
However, in the analogous art, Liao teaches an integrated electronic device package ([Abstract]), wherein (Fig. 1A+; [0004+]) an integrated electronic device package (100; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037-0045]), where a semiconductor die (102; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037-0039]) is formed over a third layer (114; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0038-0039]) of the package structure, where a molding compound (104; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037, 0039, 0048]) is formed over the semiconductor die (102; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037-0039]) and the third layer (114; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0038-0039]) of the package structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Liao’s molding compound into Kidwell’s device, and thereby, modified Kidwell’s (by Liao) device will have mold compound (in view of Liao 104; Figs. 1A-1C; see [0037, 0039, 0048]) covering the semiconductor die (Kidwell 818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) and a portion of the device side surface (Kidwell Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kidwell in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a molding compound laterally surrounding the semiconductor die and covering the third layer of the package structure (Liao [0037-0039, 0048]), which helps further protect the device parts and layers.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 12.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) comprises a current path formed of strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080])) of the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), and the vertical connections ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]).
7. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kidwell et al. (US 20190164681 A1; hereinafter Kidwell), in view of Liao et al. (US 20210193572 A1; hereinafter Liao), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 13.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the inductor (450; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0026, 0041, 0046-0050, 0079-0080]) further comprises a continuous coil (see [0026, 0041]; solenoid, where a solenoid is a continuous coil).
In regards to the limitation “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil”, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the inductor further comprises a continuous coil” is not patentable over Kidwell.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 12.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) has parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) having a first end (see below for “and an angled jog at”) a second end, the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) has parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) having a first end (see below for “with an angled jog at”) and a second end, and the vertical connections ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) between the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), and the parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) form a continuous coil (see [0026, 0041]; solenoid, where a solenoid is a continuous coil).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph Claim 16 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has a first end and has strips that have an angle at a second end, and wherein the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips with an angle at a first end and having a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers form, with the strips of the first one of the conductor layers and the strips of the second one of the conductor layers, a continuous coil”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angled jog at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end with an angled jog and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is not patentable over Kidwell.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 12.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) has parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) having a first end and (see below for “an angle at”) a second end, the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) has parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) having (see below for “an angle at”) a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections ({410a, 410b, 410c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) between the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) and the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), the parallel strips ({402a, 402b, 402c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the first one (430; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]), and the parallel strips ({406a, 406b, 406c}; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the second one (432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) of the conductor layers (430, 432; Fig. 4 in view of Figs. 3, 8; see [0046-0050, 0079-0080]) form a continuous coil (see [0026, 0041]; solenoid, where a solenoid is a continuous coil).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph Claim 15 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and that have an angled jog at a second end, and wherein the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and a second end with a corresponding angled jog at the second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers form, with the strips of the first one of the conductor layers and the strips of the second one of the conductor layers, a continuous coil”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil”. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having a first end and an angle at a second end, the second one of the conductor layers has parallel strips having an angle at a first end and a second end, and the vertical connections between the first one of the conductor layers and the second one of the conductor layers (, the parallel strips of the first one of the conductor layers, and the parallel strips of the second one of the conductor layers form a continuous coil” is not patentable over Kidwell.
Regarding claim 17, Kidwell teaches all of the features of claim 12.
Kidwell further teaches wherein the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) (see below for “is flip chip mounted to”) the device side surface (Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]), the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) (see below for “having conductive post connects extending from”) the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]), (see below for “the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on”) the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]) (see below for “and extending to a distal end away from” the semiconductor die (818; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0082]), (see below for “and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to”) the multilayer package substrate (806; Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 8; see [0079-0080]).
As noted above, Kidwell does not expressly disclose “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph Claim 7 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the semiconductor die is mounted to the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate with bond pads facing away from the device side surface of the multilayer package substrate, and having wire bonds coupling the bond pads of the semiconductor die to traces on the multilayer package substrate”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the semiconductor die is flip chip mounted to the device side surface, the semiconductor die having conductive post connects extending from the semiconductor die, the conductive post connects with a proximate end on a bond pad on the semiconductor die and extending to a distal end away from the semiconductor die, and having solder bumps on the distal end, the solder bumps forming bonds to the multilayer package substrate” is not patentable over Kidwell.
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 extension fee 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 Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898