Attorney Docket Number: CGIP0153USA
Filing Date: 12/25/2022
Claimed Priority Date: 11/16/2022 (CN 202211434036.1)
Inventors: Huang et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 09/23/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 5, reading on par.0035/ll.14-15, with respect to figures 1 and 2, in the reply filed on 09/23/2025, is acknowledged. The applicant indicated that claims 1-8, 10, 15-17, and 19-20 read on the elected species. The examiner agrees. Accordingly, claims 9, 11-14, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the grounds that Species 5 and Species 6, wherein Species 5 corresponds to figures 1 and 2 and Species 6 corresponds to figures 4 and 1, have no contradiction or undue search burden because figure 4 of Species 6 contains an intermediate layer in addition to the disclosure of figure 2 of Species 5, and thus the additional feature should not impose an undue search burden and Species 6 may be examined together with Species 5. This is not found persuasive.
In the previous restriction on page 3, the examiner set forth that the application contained nine species, each including mutually exclusive characteristics. These exclusive characteristics make the species patentably distinct from each other. That is, the unpatentability of one of the species would not necessarily imply the unpatentability of the other species. In the case of Species 5 and Species 6, each of the species have characteristics that make them exclusive from one another, and the disclosure of figure 4 in Species 6 does not disclose the entirety of the disclosure of figure 2 in Species 5. For example, Species 5 illustrates an expanded conductive pad formed so as to directly contact a bonding element, wherein the conductive pad and bonding element are connected through a melting process, whereas Species 6 illustrates a diminished conductive pad formed such that only a newly-included intermediate layer directly contacts a bonding element, wherein the intermediate layer and bonding element need not necessarily be connected through a melting process. These mutually exclusive elements make the species patentably distinct from one another and impose separate search limitations that may make the prior art applicable to one species not applicable for the other, enforcing a burden on the examiner.
The applicants, on the other hand, have failed to advance reasons leading to the conclusion that the species claimed are considered clearly unpatentable or obvious variants over each other. Accordingly, the prior art applicable to one of the species would not likely be applicable to the other species as the species are likely to raise different prior art issues. Since each of the species belongs to a different subject of inventive effort, they will require different fields of search (e.g., employing different search queries) that would allow separately searching for each of their mutually exclusive characteristics, thus creating a serious burden on the examiner.
For all the above reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is, therefore, made final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because figure 9 includes the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 141G.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Initial Remarks
PNG
media_image1.png
352
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For all instances of “Annotated Fig. 1”, please refer to the following image, which is an enlarged and annotated version of a portion of figure 1 of Gurtler (US 5,457,879). No other changes have been made to the figure.
For all non-U.S. paragraph and line number citations, please refer to the original non-English versions of the documents, which are attached to this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gurtler (US 5,457,879).
Regarding claim 1, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 1) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including an electronic device comprising:
a circuit structure 36/34/30/32 comprising a conductive pad 36, wherein the conductive pad has an accommodating recess (empty space within 36 between “opening” and the inside of the bottommost surface of 36);
a bonding element 22 (including Pb-Sn alloy layer disposed between the conductive pad 36 and conductive pillar 22 – see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57), wherein at least a portion of the bonding element is disposed in the accommodating recess (see, e.g., col.3/ll.1-2); and
an electronic unit 14 electrically connected to the conductive pad through the bonding element (col.2/ll.6-8, col.2/ll.35-39, col.2/ll.61-64, and col.3/ll.1-7)
wherein:
the accommodating recess (empty space within 36 between “opening” and the inside of the bottommost surface of 36) has a bottom surface and an opening opposite to the bottom surface, and a width of the bottom surface is greater than a width of the opening (see, e.g., col.3/ll.1-2)
Regarding claim 2, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1, Annotated fig. 1, and col.3/ll.17-18) shows that a depth of the accommodating recess (empty space within 36 between “opening” and the inside of the bottommost surface of 36) is less than a thickness of the conductive pad 36 (see, e.g., the depth of the accommodating recess and the thickness of the conductive pad as compared in the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 3, Gurtler (see, e.g., Annotated fig. 1) shows that in a cross-sectional view of the electronic device, a shortest distance between an edge of the conductive pad 36 and the bottom surface is defined as a first distance, a shortest distance between the edge of the conductive pad and the opening is defined as a second distance, and the first distance is less than the second distance. See also, e.g., if the edge of the conductive pad is defined instead as the inside edge of the sidewall directly contacting the bottom surface of Gurtler’s conductive pad, the shortest distance between the edge of the conductive pad and the bottom surface (i.e., the first distance) would be 0, further ensuring that the first distance as claimed is less than the second distance.
Regarding claim 8, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1 and col.3/ll.1-2) shows that the conductive pad 36 contacts the bonding element 22 (including Pb-Sn alloy layer disposed between the conductive pad 36 and conductive pillar 22 – see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57).
Regarding claim 10, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that a width of the accommodating recess (empty space within 36 between “opening” and the inside of the bottommost surface of 36) gradually decreases from the bottom surface to the opening.
Regarding claim 17, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1 and col.2/ll.53-57) shows another electronic unit 28, wherein the another electronic unit and the electronic unit 14 are respectively disposed on opposite two sides of the circuit structure 36/34/30/32, and the another electronic unit is electrically connected to the circuit structure.
Regarding claim 19, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the circuit structure 36/34/30/32 further comprises an insulating layer 34 (see also the insulating layers in 30 described in col.2/ll.50-51), and the conductive pad 36 is disposed on the insulating layer.
Regarding claim 20, Gurtler (see, e.g., col.2/ll.50-60) shows that the circuit structure 36/34/30/32 is a redistribution layer.
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, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurtler.
Regarding claim 4, Gurtler shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 13 above). Furthermore, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 1) shows that the accommodating recess (empty space within 36 between “opening” and the inside of the bottommost surface of 36) has a side wall (black colored-in region of Annotated Fig. 1 corresponding to “edge of conductive pad” 36) connected to the bottom surface, wherein an included angle is present between the side wall and the bottom surface. However, Gurtler fails to specify that this included angle is less than 90 degrees. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having an included angle between a side wall and bottom surface of an accommodating recess be less than 90 degrees, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the accommodating recess shape disclosed by Gurtler as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular accommodating recess shape wherein the included angle between the sidewall and bottom surface is less than 90 degrees claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous included angles that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
As such, differences in inclination will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed included angle, i.e., less than 90 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Gurtler.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed included angle or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurtler in view of Fang (US 2019/0067142).
Regarding claim 5, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 1, and paragraph 13 above) shows most aspects of the instant invention. Gurtler (see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57) further teaches that the bonding element 22 (including Pb-Sn alloy layer disposed between the conductive pad 36 and conductive pillar 22 – see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57) comprises a bonding portion (Pb-Sn alloy layer disposed between pad 36 and pillar 22 – see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57) and a conductive pillar 22. Furthermore, although Gurtler does not explicitly state that the conductive pillar is located between Gurtler’s electronic unit 14 and bonding portion, Gurtler identifies that the plated-layer bonding portion is located between Gurtler’s conductive pillar and conductive pad with the purpose of more permanently fusing the conductive pillar and conductive pad. Therefore, it would be obvious to include a portion of Gurtler’s bonding portion between the bottommost surface of Gurtler’s conductive pillar and the bottommost surface of Gurtler’s conductive pad, as permitted by Gurtler, thus creating a structure wherein Gurtler’s conductive pillar is located between Gurtler’s electronic unit and bonding portion, so as to promote the permanent fusing and stability of Gurtler’s conductive pad and pillar at a central base of Gurtler’s pad.
However, although Gurtler specifies that a heating process may be performed on Gurtler’s bonding portion so as to more permanently fuse Gurtler’s conductive pad and pillar (see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57), Gurtler fails to explicitly specify that a depth of Gurtler’s accommodating recess is greater than or equal to a thickness of Gurtler’s bonding portion.
Fang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that when a bonding portion 13s between a conductive pad 10p and a conductive pillar 13p, wherein the conductive pillar is shown to be located between an electronic unit 11a and the bonding portion, is disposed to have a thickness D1 less than a depth of an accommodating recess (recess between 13d3), that a reflow (i.e., heating) process may be performed to create layers of optimal thickness for reinforcing the connection between the conductive pad and the conductive pillar (see, e.g., Fang: figs. 1B-1C and pars.0064/ll.1-5 and 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Gurtler’s conductive pillar be located between Gurtler’s electronic unit and bonding portion, and to have a depth of Gurtler’s accommodating recess is greater than a thickness of Gurtler’s bonding portion, as taught by Fang, so as to facilitate the formation of optimally-thick layers for reinforcing the bonding between Gurtler’s conductive pad and conductive pillar. Furthermore, in order for Gurtler’s conductive pillar to be properly gripped by Gurtler’s conductive pad, as asserted by Gurtler, a thickness of the bonding portion between Gurtler’s conductive pad and pillar would necessarily need to be lesser than a depth of Gurtler’s accommodating recess, so as to not inappropriately push out Gurtler’s conductive pillar from Gurtler’s accommodating recess.
Regarding claim 6, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1, col.5/ll.53-57, and paragraphs 29-32 above) shows that the bonding portion (Pb-Sn alloy layer disposed between pad 36 and pillar 22 – see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57) is disposed in the accommodating recess (empty space within 36 between “opening” and the inside of the bottommost surface of 36), and the conductive pad 36 contacts a portion of the conductive pillar 22.
Regarding claim 7, Gurtler (see, e.g., fig. 1, col.5/ll.53-57, and paragraphs 29-32 above) shows that the bonding portion (Pb-Sn alloy layer disposed between pad 36 and pillar 22 – see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57) comprises solder (e.g., Pb-Sn alloy), and at least a portion of the accommodating recess (empty space within 36 between “opening” and the inside of the bottommost surface of 36) is filled with the bonding portion.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurtler in view of Dan (CN 103745965 B).
Regarding claim 15, Gurtler shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 13 above). However, Gurtler fails to specify that a protective layer surrounds the electronic unit and the bonding element. Dan, in the same field of endeavor and through a similar device to Gurtler, shows a protective layer 204 completely filling all unoccupied areas of Dan’s device, such that the protective layer surrounds an electronic unit 200 and a bonding element 107/108/203 (see, e.g., Dan: fig. 8). Dan teaches that such a protective layer protects and isolates the composite structure (see, e.g., Dan: par.0072/ll.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an overarching protective layer in the electronic device of Gurtler surrounding Gurtler’s electronic unit and bonding element, as taught by Dan, so as to protect and isolate Gurtler’s components.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurtler in view of Seok (US 2022/0157757).
Regarding claim 16, Gurtler shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 13 above). Furthermore, Gurtler teaches that Gurtler’s circuit layer 36/34/30/32 has opposite two sides, wherein a bonding element 22 (including Pb-Sn alloy layer disposed between the conductive pad 36 and conductive pillar 22 – see, e.g., col.5/ll.53-57) is disposed on one side of the circuit layer and a substrate 26 and another electronic unit 28 are disposed on the other opposite side of the circuit layer. However, Gurtler fails to specify that Gurtler’s electronic device further comprises another bonding element disposed on the opposite side of the circuit layer (as compared to the side where the bonding element is located), and that the another bonding element is electrically connected to the circuit structure.
Seok, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electronic device having a circuit structure 520, another electronic unit DL3 below the circuit structure, and a substrate 100 below the another electronic unit (see, e.g., Seok: fig. 26). Seok further shows a bonding element BP3/540 in and at the top of the another electronic unit and below the circuit structure while electrically connected to both the circuit structure and the another electronic unit (see, e.g., Seok: fig. 26). Seok teaches that including such a bonding element between the another electronic unit and circuit structure allows for robust bonding between the another electronic unit and circuit structure, which improves the structural stability of the electronic device (see, e.g., Seok: pars.0044/ll.15-17 and 0128/ll.14-16). Seok further teaches that having such another bonding element electrically connected to a circuit structure facilitates physically and electrically connecting the another electronic unit to other external components connected to the circuit structure, which can be located above the another electronic unit (see, e.g., Seok: fig. 6 and pars.0056 and 0067/ll.13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have another bonding element disposed in Gurtler’s another electronic unit 28, creating a structure wherein the another bonding element and the bonding element are respectively disposed on opposite two sides of the circuit structure 36/34/30/32, so as to robustly bond Gurtler’s another electronic unit and circuit structure and improve the structural stability of Gurtler’s electronic device, as taught by Seok. Furthermore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have such an another bonding element be electrically connected to Gurtler’s circuit structure, as taught by Seok, so as to maintain, support, and/or facilitate physically and electrically connecting Gurtler’s another electronic device to other external components.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814