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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made that applicant's Amendment, filed on December 23rd, 2025, has been entered.
Upon entrance of the Amendment, claims 1, 10-11, and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,456,287).
Regarding to claim 11, Hu teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a support substrate (Fig. 2A, element 100);
a first substrate disposed on the support substrate (Fig. 2A, element 21);
a second substrate disposed on the support substrate (Fig. 2A, element 22); and
an underfill material applied between the support substrate and the first substrate and between the support substrate and the second substrate, wherein at least a portion of the underfill material has a raised edge at a first distance from the first substrate (Fig. 2A, element 112).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
1664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 12, Hu teaches the first substrate is electrically coupled to the support substrate via one or more conductive connectors located between opposing surfaces of the first substrate and the support substrate (Fig. 2A).
Regarding to claim 13, Hu teaches the first substrate has a plurality of edges; and the raised edge of the underfill material is located in proximity to at least a portion of an edge, an edge, two edges, three edges, four edges of the plurality of edges or a combination thereof (Fig. 2A).
Regarding to claim 14, Hu teaches the first distance is less than a predefined first separation limit (Fig. 2A).
Regarding to claim 17, Hu teaches the first substrate includes a semiconductor package, and the support substrate includes a printed circuit board (Fig. 2A).
Regarding to claim 18, Hu teaches the first substrate includes a chip, and the support substrate includes a semiconductor package and forms a system in a package with the first substrate (Fig. 2A).
Regarding to claim 19, Hu teaches the underfill material has a second raised edge at a second distance from the second substrate (Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image2.png
486
1335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 20, Hu teaches a top surface the support substrate includes an alignment mark configured to facilitate aligning a bracket structure with the top surface of the support substrate (Fig. 2, element 114).
Claims 11-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0293565).
Regarding to claim 11, Shin teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a support substrate (Fig. 2, element 100);
a first substrate disposed on the support substrate (Fig. 2, element 200);
a second substrate disposed on the support substrate (Fig. 2, element 300); and
an underfill material applied between the support substrate and the first substrate and between the support substrate and the second substrate, wherein at least a portion of the underfill material has a raised edge at a first distance from the first substrate (Fig. 2, please see the attached figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
875
1732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 12, Shin teaches the first substrate is electrically coupled to the support substrate via one or more conductive connectors located between opposing surfaces of the first substrate and the support substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 13, Shin teaches the first substrate has a plurality of edges; and the raised edge of the underfill material is located in proximity to at least a portion of an edge, an edge, two edges, three edges, four edges of the plurality of edges or a combination thereof (Fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 14, Shin teaches the first distance is less than a predefined first separation limit (Fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 17, Shin teaches the first substrate includes a semiconductor package, and the support substrate includes a printed circuit board (Fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 18, Shin teaches the first substrate includes a chip, and the support substrate includes a semiconductor package and forms a system in a package with the first substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 20, Shin teaches a top surface the support substrate includes an alignment mark configured to facilitate aligning a bracket structure with the top surface of the support substrate (Fig. 2, element 102).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 15, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “second portion has a second raised edge at a second distance form the first substrate; and the first distance is greater than the second distance, and the first raised edge is lower than the second raised edge” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 11 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 15.
Regarding to claim 16, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “after the underfill material is applied and hardened, the underfill material extends beyond a third edge by a bleed-out range, and does not have the raised edge near the third edge; and the bleed-out range is greater than the first distance” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 11.
Regarding to claim 1, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a bracket structure including a first opening and a second opening, wherein after the bracket structure is placed on the support substrate, the first substrate is located in the first opening having with a first separation from the first substrate, and the second substrate is located within the second opening” in combination with the rest of limitations recited in claim 1.
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 VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897