DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 12-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by ENQUIST, US 2019/0237419 A1.
Claim 1. ENQUIST, discloses a bonding process of a microdevice into a system substrate (such as the steps from figs. 1-7, [0037], items 30, 32), where the system substrate has at least one pad (items 7/1/4) for coupling to the micro device and a dielectric layer (item 3, upper layer) formed adjacent to the at least one pad, the dielectric layer being adhesive and configured to bond to a corresponding dielectric (item 3, bottom layer) on the microdevice.
Claim 2. ENQUIST, discloses the bonding process of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer is separated from the pads (as seen in the structure of the figures cited above).
Claims 4-5, 12, 14. ENQUIST, discloses the bonding process of claim 1, wherein microdevice pads and the at least one pad are in a contact wherein the contact between the microdevice pads and the at least one pad is formed at a temperature below a temperature needed to form an alloy (this limitation would read through [0038] wherein is disclosed examples of heating include temperatures in the range of 100-400° C. for times between 10 minutes and 2 hours depending upon the materials used for the contact structures 4, barrier 6 and conductor 1. Time and temperature optimization for a given combination of materials is possible.
Claim 13. ENQUIST, discloses the bonding process of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer is formed before integration of the microdevice (this limitation would read through [0039] of the primary reference wherein is disclosed that if the initial bond between the dielectric 3 of substrates 30 and 32 does not include barriers 7, heating can be used to result in contact between barriers 7 due to a higher CTE of barrier 7 than dielectric 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
5. Claim(s) 6-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENQUIST, US 2019/0237419 A1, in view of Razdan et al., US 2015/0162313 A1.
Claim 6. ENQUIST, disclose the bonding process of claim 1, above.
The reference appears to not indicate wherein a housing structure holds the microdevice and the microdevice has connections that are formed as microdevice pads.
However, in a similar interconnect structure, fig. 1 of Razdan et al., disclose a housing structure (item 109) holds the microdevice (item 102) and the microdevice has connections that are formed as microdevice pads (item 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to modify the device of ENQUIST by using the encapsulant from the teaching of Razdan et al., a housing structure, because encapsulants in microdevice structures, such as epoxy molding compounds or polymers, are used primarily to protect sensitive, fragile components from environmental hazards (moisture, contaminants, chemical exposure) and mechanical stressors (vibration, shock). They also provide electrical insulation, improve heat dissipation, and enhance structural integrity, ensuring long-term reliability and performance.
Claims 7-11. ENQUIST/ Razdan et al., disclose the bonding process of claim 6, wherein the microdevice pads are conductive and are composed of one or more types of material (this limitation would read through [0038] of the primary reference wherein is disclosed that for times between 10 minutes and 2 hours depending upon the materials used for the contact structures 4, barrier 6 and conductor 1. Time and temperature optimization for a given combination of materials is possible).
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 WILNER JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 8:00-6:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/W.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights