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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant filed a petition on 1/5/26 requesting review and reconsideration of the Restriction Requirement.
Claims 8 and 9, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on new references Kawabata and Williamson for teaching matters specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “leadframe” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “printed circuit board” or “substrate with interconnects” while the accepted meaning of such a package substrate (in the specification of this application) is “a routable/molded leadframe.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The other claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0138131 (Kawabata), cited by Applicant.
Kawabata discloses (Figs. 1, 2, 6, 20)
1. (Currently Amended) A module, comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) die 31;
a leadframe 20 having conductive channels 25 and contact pads 23;
solder elements 24 coupled between the IC die 31 and the contact pads 23 of the leadframe 20;
an insulative layer (on front surface 21) between the solder elements 24; and
magnetic-molding compound (MMC) filler 5 / 6 ([0081]) between the IC die 31 and the insulative layer (on front surface 21).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 is/are, to the extent taught and understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0207435 (Williamson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0170247 (Shekhawat).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Williamson discloses (Figs. 15, 16)
1. (Currently Amended) A module, comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) die 120;
a leadframe 101 having conductive channels 108 / 103 and contact pads 124;
solder elements 122 coupled between the IC die 120 and the contact pads 124 of the leadframe 101;
an insulative layer 116 between the solder elements 122; and
filler 1506 / 1606 between the IC die 120 and the insulative layer 116.
Williamson fails to disclose
magnetic-molding compound (MMC) filler.
Shekhawat teaches
A module, comprising:
magnetic-molding compound (MMC) filler 118 / 120.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MMC filler in Williamson. The motivation would be so the filler material may be cured by heating at a lower temperature. Curing the filler surrounds the solder elements and protects them and the connection between the die and the insulative layer, as well as assist in supporting the die on the leadframe, as taught by Shekhawat ([0002], [0008]). See MPEP 2144.03 and 2144.07.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Shekhawat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP Publication No. 2006-165303 (Sato).
The combination of references fails to teach
2. (Currently Amended) The module of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the MMC filler between the IC die and the insulative layer is limited by a thickness of the insulative layer.
Sato teaches
A module, comprising:
wherein a thickness of the filler 40 / 42 between the IC die 10 and the insulative layer 22 is limited by a thickness SR of the insulative layer 22.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the thickness of the filler in the modified device of Williamson. The motivation would be to prevent damage on an active surface by completely packing a filler between a die and an insulative layer even if the height of a solder element reduces in accordance with a narrow pitch processing of a die as taught by Sato.
Shekhawat and Sato teach
3. (Currently Amended) The module of claim 2, wherein the thickness of the insulative layer 22 is based on a target gap G between the IC die 10 and the leadframe 20 and a threshold particle size Q / 42 of the MMC filler 118 / 120.
Shekhawat and Sato teaches
4. (Currently Amended) The module of claim 3, wherein the target gap G is selected to limit particles Q / 42 of the MMC filler 118 / 120 between the IC die 10 and the insulative layer 22 to less than the threshold particle size.
Sato teaches
5. The module of claim 1, wherein the insulative layer 22 comprises solder resist.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use solder resist in the modified device of Williamson. The motivation would be solder resist is well-known and suitable insulative layer when combined with solder elements in the module art as taught by Sato. See MPEP 2144.03 and 2144.07.
Sato teaches
6. The module of claim 1, wherein the insulative layer 22 partially exposes the contact pads 24.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to partially expose the pads in the modified device of Williamson. The motivation would be a matter of routine engineering design considerations and suitability as taught by Sato. See MPEP 2144.03 and 2144.07.
Sato teaches
7. The module of claim 1, wherein the insulative layer 22 has a layout based on an outline of the contact pads 24.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Shekhawat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0006259 (Inoue).
The combination of references fails to teach
8. (Original) The module of claim 1, further comprising a coil having a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to a first solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, the second end coupled to a second solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, wherein a core of the coil includes the MMC filler.
Inoue teaches
A module comprising:
a coil 202 having a first end 212a and a second end 212b, the first end 210a coupled to a first solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, the second end 212b coupled to a second solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, wherein a core 210 of the coil 202 includes the MMC filler (encapsulating the coil 202, [0020]; fill the space withing coil 202, such as the core 210, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coil in the modified device of Williamson. The motivation would be to form a system to support a particular application, such as proximity sensing, energy storage, actuation, power transmission, and filtering as taught by Inoue ([0016]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Shekhawat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0197621 (Meyyappan).
The combination of references fails to teach
9. (Original) The module of claim 1, wherein the IC die includes switching converter components.
Meyyappan teaches (Fig. 6A)
A module comprising:
wherein the IC die 216 includes switching converter components.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to partially expose the pads in the modified device of Williamson. The motivation would be a matter of routine engineering design considerations and suitability as taught by Meyyappan ([0035]). See MPEP 2144.03 and 2144.07.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP Publication No. 2006-165303 (Sato).
Kawabata fails to teach
2. (Currently Amended) The module of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the MMC filler between the IC die and the insulative layer is limited by a thickness of the insulative layer.
Sato teaches
A module, comprising:
wherein a thickness of the filler 40 / 42 between the IC die 10 and the insulative layer 22 is limited by a thickness SR of the insulative layer 22.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the thickness of the filler in Kawabata. The motivation would be to prevent damage on an active surface by completely packing a filler between a die and an insulative layer even if the height of a solder element reduces in accordance with a narrow pitch processing of a die as taught by Sato.
Kawabata and Sato teach
3. (Currently Amended) The module of claim 2, wherein the thickness of the insulative layer 22 is based on a target gap G between the IC die 10 and the leadframe 20 and a threshold particle size Q / 42 of the MMC filler 5 / 6.
Kawabata and Sato teaches
4. (Currently Amended) The module of claim 3, wherein the target gap G is selected to limit particles Q / 42 of the MMC filler 5 / 6 between the IC die 10 and the insulative layer 22 to less than the threshold particle size.
Sato teaches
5. The module of claim 1, wherein the insulative layer 22 comprises solder resist.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use solder resist in Kawabata. The motivation would be solder resist is well-known and suitable insulative layer when combined with solder elements in the module art as taught by Sato. See MPEP 2144.03 and 2144.07.
Sato teaches
6. The module of claim 1, wherein the insulative layer 22 partially exposes the contact pads 24.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to partially expose the pads in Kawabata. The motivation would be a matter of routine engineering design considerations and suitability as taught by Sato. See MPEP 2144.03 and 2144.07.
Sato teaches
7. The module of claim 1, wherein the insulative layer 22 has a layout based on an outline of the contact pads 24.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0006259 (Inoue).
Kawabata fails to teach
8. (Original) The module of claim 1, further comprising a coil having a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to a first solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, the second end coupled to a second solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, wherein a core of the coil includes the MMC filler.
Inoue teaches
A module comprising:
a coil 202 having a first end 212a and a second end 212b, the first end 210a coupled to a first solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, the second end 212b coupled to a second solder element of the solder elements and a respective contact pad of the contact pads, wherein a core 210 of the coil 202 includes the MMC filler (encapsulating the coil 202, [0020]; fill the space withing coil 202, such as the core 210, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coil in Kawabata. The motivation would be to form a system to support a particular application, such as proximity sensing, energy storage, actuation, power transmission, and filtering as taught by Inoue ([0016]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0197621 (Meyyappan).
Kawabata fails to teach
9. (Original) The module of claim 1, wherein the IC die includes switching converter components.
Meyyappan teaches (Fig. 6A)
A module comprising:
wherein the IC die 216 includes switching converter components.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to partially expose the pads in Kawabata. The motivation would be a matter of routine engineering design considerations and suitability as taught by Meyyappan ([0035]). See MPEP 2144.03 and 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0307345 (Hou), 2022/0157744 (Chiang), 2020/0211760 (Brassfield), 2017/0200554 (Kudo) teach a module having a filler.
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 TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571.272.1236. 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893