DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first mold material and the second mold material" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In review of the applicant’s disclosure and independent claim 1, the examiner has addressed the limitation in question as “the first layer and the second layer” in the following prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 12, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehta et al. US 2021/0035859 A1.
Regarding claims, 1-4, 8, 9 and 12, Mehta discloses:
An electronic package (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
a package substrate (230);
a die (220A) coupled to the package substrate by a plurality of interconnects (235);
a first layer (228) on the package substrate surrounding the die; and
a second layer (225) over and around the die, wherein the second layer underfills the plurality of interconnects, wherein the second layer has a different material composition than the first layer (Fig. 2A; para 0029).
(claims 2 and 3) Fig. 2.
(claim 4) para 0029; 128/228 lower CTE than 125/225.
(claim 8) a second die (220B); a plurality of second interconnects (235).
(claim 9) a third layer (Fig. 2; 225).
(claim 12) para 0057-0060.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner does not give patentable weight in regards to the claim limitation stating that ”wherein the first layer and the second layer form a continuous sheet that is applied over the package substrate” since such a limitation is taken to be a product-by-process limitation and is considered nonlimiting. A product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned" from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Regarding claims 13, 15 and 16, Mehta discloses:
A mold underfill (MUF) sheet (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
a first mold material (225) with a first composition;
an opening (227) formed through the first mold material; and
a second mold (228) material in the opening, wherein the second mold material comprises a second composition (Fig. 2; para 0029).
(claims 15 and 16) Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 17, the examiner does not give patentable weight in regards to the claim limitation stating that “wherein the MUF sheet is part of a roll of a plurality of MUF sheets” since such a limitation is taken to be a product-by-process limitation and is considered nonlimiting. A product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned" from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Regarding claims 18-20, Mehta discloses:
A computing system (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
a board (205);
a package substrate (230) coupled to the board;
a die (220A) coupled to the package substrate; and
a mold underfill (MUF) (225/228) disposed over the package substrate and the die,
wherein the MUF comprises:
a first mold material (225) over and around the die; and
a second mold material (228) surrounding the first mold material.
(claim 19) para 0029.
(claim 20) para 0057-0060.
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.
Claims 5, 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Chang et al. US 2021/0193542 A1.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mehta does not disclose:
(claim 5) wherein the first layer has a first filler loading percentage, and the second layer has a second filler loading percentage, wherein the second filler loading percentage is lower than the first filler loading percentage. (claims 6 and 14) wherein the first layer/composition and the second layer/composition have differences in one or more of filler size, filler loading, filler type, filler shape, filler hollow ratio, resin type, and additives.
Chang discloses a publication from a similar field of endeavor in which:
(claim 5) wherein the first layer (135) has a first filler (para 0030), and the second layer (132) has a second filler (para 0029) (Fig. 2A). (claims 6 and 14) wherein the first layer/composition (135) and the second layer/composition (132) have differences in one or more of filler size, filler loading, filler type, filler shape, filler hollow ratio, resin type, and additives (paras 0029 and 0030; filler, resin, additives) (Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the filler loading percentage of the first and second fillers such that the second filler loading percentage is lower than the first filler loading percentage based on the disclosure of Chang to further tailor the similar first and second layers of Mehta to reduce warpage of the electronic package.
Claims 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. US 2021/0035859 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, although Mehta does not specifically disclose “(claim 10) wherein a material composition of the second layer is substantially similar to a material composition of the third layer; and (claim 11) wherein a material composition of the second layer is different than a material composition of the third layer”, does give evidence to adjusting material characteristics between mold and underfill layers, 128 and 125, respectively in para 0029 to reduce warpage, improved reliability, and/or improved thermal performance of the overall electronic package. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine material of the third layer of Mehta to be similar or different than second layer for the same purposes cited above since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Lesbin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERROL V FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)270-7433. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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.
/ERROL V FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, AU 2893