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 .
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation " the second width " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh et al. (US 7652374 B2) hereinafter Koh.
Regarding claim 11, Koh discloses electronic package (Fig.12), comprising: a first substrate (860) with a first pad (840); a second substrate (820) with a second pad (810); a layer (830) between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the layer comprises a well (see openings within 830) through the layer; and a liquid metal (870) in the well, wherein the liquid metal contacts the first pad and the second pad (see 870 in touch with 810 and 840).
Regarding claim 12, Koh discloses: a reservoir (opening within 830 that is on top of 840) fluidically coupled to the well.
Regarding claim 13, Koh discloses: wherein the reservoir is provided adjacent to the first pad and the second pad (top opening within 830 is between 819 and 840).
Regarding claim 14, Koh discloses the reservoir is a channel into the layer (see opening within 830).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Droz (CA2821060 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Droz discloses an electronic system (Fig.6) , comprising: a board (6;Fig.6) with a first pad (34); a package substrate (12A) with a second pad (20) electrically coupled to the board by a liquid metal (18) that contacts the first pad (34) and the second pad (20); and a die (46) coupled to the package substrate (12a) .
Regarding claim 19, Droz: a layer (see layer above 22 and below 15)between the board (6) and the package substrate (12a), wherein the layer comprises a well (see opening that accommodates 18) that confines the liquid metal (18).
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim (s) 1,5,10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh in view of Mohammed (US 2020/0043880A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koh discloses, in Fig.10 an electronic package, comprising: a package substrate (860) with a first surface (top surface of 860) and a second surface (bottom of 860) opposite from the first surface; a pad (see 840) on the first surface of the package substrate, wherein the pad has a first width (see width of 840); a layer (832) on the first surface of the package substrate, wherein the layer comprises a well (see openings within 832) through the layer (832) , wherein the well has a second width that is wider than the first width (see opening in 832 wider than width of 840); and a metallic material (870) in the well and in contact with the pad (840),
Koh is silent with respect to the metallic material comprising gallium.
Mohammed discloses gallium (205; [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Mohammed to modify the device of Koh in order to provide a strong electrical connection between circuit devices to perform circuit operations.
Regarding claim 5, Koh fails to disclose wherein the metallic material comprises gallium alloyed with at least one other metal.
Mohammed discloses wherein the metallic material comprises gallium alloyed with at least one other metal (gallium combined with either Indium or Tin; [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Mohammed to modify the device of Koh in order to provide a strong electrical connection between circuit devices to perform circuit operations.
Regarding claim 10, Koh discloses wherein the liquid metal contacts top surfaces and sidewall surfaces of the second pad (see 870 in contact with surface 812 and side surfaces of 810; Fig.12).
Regarding claim 20, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “wherein the electronic system is part of a personal computer, a server, a mobile device, a tablet, or an automobile” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Koh who teaches the structure as claimed.
Claim (s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh in view of Mohammed, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yu et al. (CN 112103253 A; published in 2020; English translation) hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 2, Koh fails to disclose wherein the layer comprises a foam.
Yu discloses a foam (170; Fig.3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Yu to modify the layer of Koh in order to reduce warpage (see “the molding material layer 120 has a foam structure 170 formed therein to reduce warpage” in Yu).
Regarding claim 3, Koh fails to disclose wherein the foam is a closed cell foam.
Yu discloses a closed cell foam (170 can be closed cell foam; see Fig.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Yu to modify the layer of Koh in order to reduce warpage (see “the molding material layer 120 has a foam structure 170 formed therein to reduce warpage” in Yu).
Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh in view of Mohammed, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (CN 112425270A; published in 2021; English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Koh fails to specifically disclose wherein the layer comprises silicone.
Ishikawa discloses silicone (see insulating layer made of silicone resin in Background).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Ishikawa to modify the layer of Koh in order to provide great insulating properties.
Claim (s) 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Droz (CA 281060 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Koh discloses wherein the first surface of the package substrate is non-planar (see top surface of 860; Fig.13), and wherein the layer conforms to a profile of the first surface of the package substrate (see 830 conforming to top surface of 860; Fig.13).
Koh fails to specifically disclose the device is a board.
Droz discloses a board (6;Fig.3 and 4A-4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Droz to modify the device of Koh in order to make electrical connections to perform circuit operations.
Regarding claim 8, Koh discloses a device (820) on a surface of the layer opposite from the package substrate (860); and a second pad (810) on the device, wherein the liquid metal directly contacts the second pad (see 870 in contact with 810; Fig.12).
Regarding claim 9, Koh discloses wherein the second width (center width of 810; see Fig.12) is greater than a third width (see third width of 812) of the second pad.
Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 7652374 B2) hereinafter Koh in view of Mohammed, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsou et al. (US 2019/0148288 A1) hereinafter Tsou.
Regarding claim 7, Koh fails to specifically disclose wherein an adhesive is provided between the package substrate and the layer.
Tsou discloses an adhesive (103; Fig.3) is provided between the package substrate (101; Fig.3) and the layer (105; Fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the adhesive layer of Tsou to modify the layer and package substrate of Koh in order to assist adhering an overlying structure on a carrier substrate and provide a more stable structure.
Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Droz (CA 2821060 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Koh discloses wherein the first substrate is a package substrate (860).
Koh fails to specifically disclose the second substrate is a board.
Droz discloses a board (6; Fig.3 and 4A-4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Droz to modify the device of Koh in order to make electrical connections to perform circuit operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 15-16, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein the liquid metal has voids " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229 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).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights