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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 22, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles et al. (US 5,535,101) in view of Robinson (US 2007/0205521) and Hoang (US 6,373,142).
In regards to claim 1, Miles et al. teaches a secure electronic component assembly (Figure 1), comprising: a printed circuit board (16); an integrated circuit (10) mounted on the PCB (16); and an underfill material (28) disposed between the IC (10) and the PCB (16).
Miles et al. does not explicitly teach the underfill comprises a detection agent configured to change a state of the IC in response to exposure to an external environment, wherein the change in the state of the IC is indicative of a tamper condition.
Robinson teaches the underfill comprises a detection agent (silver filled epoxy , paragraph [0007]) capable to change a state of the IC in response to exposure to an external environment, wherein the change in the state of the IC is indicative of a tamper condition (tamper-proof encapsulation are well documented and known in the art. A conventional method of securing an MMIC in a semiconductor component involves the use of a silver filled epoxy to bond the MMIC. This reportedly led to degraded performance of the MMIC over time because as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device changes, paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used a underfill comprises a detection agent in the underfill of Miles et al. as taught by Robinson since Robinson targets for improvement include hermetic encapsulation, tamper-proof packaging, maintaining or improving process and cost efficiency, maintaining or improving performance characteristics, and maintaining or improving packaging size (paragraph [0008]).
Miles et al. does not explicitly teach the detection agent is blended with the underfill material to form a uniform mixture.
Hoang teaches a detection agent (alumina, column 6, line 17) is blended with the underfill material to form a uniform mixture (uniform mixture: a combination of substances that are thoroughly blended together, resulting in a consistent composition throughout; see figure 1B the mixture is blended together and in a consistent form).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have mad the underfill material and detection agent combined in a uniform mixture since Uniformly dispersing alumina (a detection agent) in an underfill epoxy for a circuit is critical to ensure uniform thermal conductivity, manage the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), and maintain structural integrity during thermal cycling. Because alumina acts as a filler to enhance the performance of the epoxy matrix, a uniform distribution prevents the formation of localized stress points, voids, or thermal bottlenecks that could lead to premature failure of high-density packaging, such as flip-chip components.
In regards to claim 2, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of Claim 1, wherein the change in the state of the IC comprises a change from a functional state of the IC to a non-functional state of the IC (the state of the IC in functional or non-functional is a result of the as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 3, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of Claim 2, wherein the non-functional state of the IC is capable of being caused by a short- circuit between one or more internal connections in the IC (improper impedance matching can lead to a short circuit; the state of the IC in functional or non-functional is a result of the as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 4, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of Claim 2, wherein the non-functional state of the IC is caused by physical degradation of the IC (caused by the oxidation of the epoxy, paragraph [0007]).
In regards to claim 5, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of Claim 2, wherein the non-functional state of the IC is caused by an alteration in one or more electrical properties of the IC (improper impedance matching can lead to a short circuit; the state of the IC in functional or non-functional is a result of the as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 6, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the detection agent comprises at least one of an oxidization agent or a chemical agent (epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 7, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of Claim 1, wherein the detection agent (silver filled epoxy , paragraph [0007]) is capable to change a chromatic appearance of the IC in response to exposure to the external environment, and wherein the change of the chromatic appearance is indicative of a tamper condition (this is a process that will take place after the oxidation process).
In regards to claim 8, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of Claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of solder balls ((27) of Miles et al.) operatively coupled to the IC (10), wherein the plurality of solder balls (27) is configured for physical and electrical connection between the IC and the PCB (see figure 2, electrically connected, claim 1).
In regards to claim 9, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the assembly of Claim 8, wherein the underfill material (28), once cured (cured, column 3, line 63), encapsulates the plurality of solder balls (26), forming a mechanical and thermal bridge that provides mechanical reinforcement mechanical bonding, column 3, line 67), stress redistribution, and enhanced thermal conductivity between the IC and the PCB (see figure 2).
In regards to claim 10, Miles et al. teaches a method for making a secure electronic component assembly, the method comprising: providing a printed circuit board (16) comprising a plurality of pads (20); mounting an integrated circuit (10) onto the PCB by positioning a plurality of solder balls (26) in alignment with the plurality of pads (20) and disposing the IC (10) on the plurality of solder balls (26) so as to operatively couple the IC (10) and the PCB (16); and applying an underfill material (28) such that the underfill material (28) is in contact with the plurality of solder balls (26) and the PCB (16).
Miles et al. does not teach a detection agent between the IC and the PCB, wherein the detection agent is configured to change a state of the IC in response to exposure to an external environment, wherein the change in the state of the IC is indicative of a tamper condition.
Robinson teaches the underfill comprises a detection agent (silver filled epoxy , paragraph [0007]) capable to change a state of the IC in response to exposure to an external environment, wherein the change in the state of the IC is indicative of a tamper condition (tamper-proof encapsulation are well documented and known in the art. A conventional method of securing an MMIC in a semiconductor component involves the use of a silver filled epoxy to bond the MMIC. This reportedly led to degraded performance of the MMIC over time because as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device changes, paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used a underfill comprises a detection agent in the underfill of Miles et al. as taught by Robinson since Robinson targets for improvement include hermetic encapsulation, tamper-proof packaging, maintaining or improving process and cost efficiency, maintaining or improving performance characteristics, and maintaining or improving packaging size (paragraph [0008]).
Miles et al. does not explicitly teach the detection agent is blended with the underfill material to form a uniform mixture.
Hoang teaches a detection agent (alumina, column 6, line 17) is blended with the underfill material to form a uniform mixture (uniform mixture: a combination of substances that are thoroughly blended together, resulting in a consistent composition throughout; see figure 1B the mixture is blended together and in a consistent form).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have mad the underfill material and detection agent combined in a uniform mixture since Uniformly dispersing alumina (a detection agent) in an underfill epoxy for a circuit is critical to ensure uniform thermal conductivity, manage the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), and maintain structural integrity during thermal cycling. Because alumina acts as a filler to enhance the performance of the epoxy matrix, a uniform distribution prevents the formation of localized stress points, voids, or thermal bottlenecks that could lead to premature failure of high-density packaging, such as flip-chip components.
In regards to claim 11, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein the change in the state of the IC comprises a change from a functional state of the IC to a non-functional state of the IC (the state of the IC in functional or non-functional is a result of the as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 12, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the method of Claim 11, wherein the non-functional state of the IC is capable of being caused by a short- circuit between one or more internal connections in the IC (improper impedance matching can lead to a short circuit; the state of the IC in functional or non-functional is a result of the as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 13, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the teaches the method of Claim 11, wherein the non-functional state of the IC is caused by physical degradation of the IC (caused by the oxidation of the epoxy, paragraph [0007]).
In regards to claim 14, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the method of Claim 11, wherein the non-functional state of the IC is caused by an alteration in one or more electrical properties of the IC (improper impedance matching can lead to a short circuit; the state of the IC in functional or non-functional is a result of the as the epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 15, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the detection agent comprises at least one of an oxidization agent or a chemical agent (epoxy oxidizes the impedance of the MMIC device change, paragraph [0007], Robinson).
In regards to claim 16, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the detection agent (silver filled epoxy , paragraph [0007]) is capable to change a chromatic appearance of the IC in response to exposure to the external environment, and wherein the change of the chromatic appearance is indicative of a tamper condition (this is a process that will take place after the oxidation process).
In regards to claim 17, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein the underfill material (28), once cured (cured, column 3, line 63), encapsulates the plurality of solder balls (26), forming a mechanical and thermal bridge that provides mechanical reinforcement mechanical bonding, column 3, line 67), stress redistribution, and enhanced thermal conductivity between the IC and the PCB (see figure 2).
In regards to claim 18, Miles et al. in combination with Robinson teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: applying the underfill material in a liquid state (liquid, column 3 line 63); and curing the underfill material to transition the underfill material from the liquid state to a solid state (cured, column 3, line 63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not only rely on the current references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sumita et al. (US 6,733,902 teaches micro-encapsulated epoxy. Weingart (US 4,860,351) teaches tamper resistant packaging.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (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). 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.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848