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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 2/27/2026. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 17, 19, 21-24, 26-29, 31 & 32 are pending in this application. Claims 4-6, 9, 13, 18, 20, 25 & 30 are canceled. Claims 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21-24 & 26-29 are withdrawn. Claims 31-32 are new.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 31 & 32 are examined in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
2. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 3,
-line 3: in front of “first capsulates” insert --the--,
-line 5: in front of “second capsulates” insert --the--.
Re claim 31,
-line 8: in front of “second capsulates” insert --the--,
-line 8: after “first”, delete “components” and insert --component--.
Re claim 32,
-line 5: after “first”, delete “components” and insert --component--,
-line 7: after “second”, delete “components” and insert --component--,
-page 10, line 1: in front of “fixed position”, insert --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation(s) in new claim 32 which states “by applying a stimulus including one of thermal, optical, chemical, pressure, acoustic, electromagnetic, and electrical”, were not disclosed in the original filing.
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.
4. Claims 2 and 10 are 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.
In particular, claims 2 & 10 each cites “the capsules are activated” (claim 2), “functionalizing the capsules” & “at least part of the capsules” (claim 10) are not clear when reading into claim 1. Claim 1 requires first & second capsules, it is not clear which one of the first/second capsulates that limitation “the capsules” in claims 2 & 10 referring to.
Applicant is suggested to revise and clarify the claim(s) to avoid any further confusions.
For best understanding and examination purpose, the claim(s) will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts.
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)(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.
5. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2017/0062374).
Re claim 32, Chu teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-3, 8A-C & 9, [0100, 0106, 0107, 0133, 0136-0138], a method of manufacturing an electronics unit with a first component (chip M20) with a plurality of first electrical contacts (E20), comprising an integrated circuit (of chip), and a second component (substrate M10) with a plurality of second electrical contacts (E10), the method comprising:
-providing capsules (15, similar to 10, 11) each containing one or more electrically conductive particles (core C15),
-applying the capsules to at least one of the first component and the second component (M10),
-arranging the first component (M20) and the second component (M10) at a predetermined distance, with the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second electrical contacts (E10) opposing each other and maintained in a fixed position relative to one another during activation; and
-activating the capsules (15) (e.g., outflowed), while the first and second components are maintained in fixed position relative to one another, by apply a stimulus including one of thermal, optical, chemical, pressure, acoustic, electromagnetic, and electrical (e.g. outflowed by pressing process and/or heating process), so that the one or more electrically conductive particles (C15) are released and arrange at least one of the first component (M20) on the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second component (M10) on the second electrical contacts (E10), and form an electrically conductive structure (N15a, C15a) comprising the one or more of the electrically conductive particles (C15).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 (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 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.
6. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2017/0062374) in view of Tanaka (US 2019/0239630).
Re claim 1, Chu teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-3, 8A-C & 9, [0100, 0106, 0107, 0133, 0136-0138], a method of manufacturing an electronics unit with a first component (chip M20) with a plurality of first electrical contacts (E20), comprising an integrated circuit (of chip), and a second component (substrate M10) with a plurality of second electrical contacts (E10), the method comprising:
-providing first capsules (15, similar to 10, 11) each containing one or more electrically conductive particles (core C15), wherein the first capsules are connected to at least one second capsulate (other 15) (in 150);
-applying the first capsules (15) and the second capsulates (other 15) to at least one of the first component (M20) and the second component (M10),
-arranging the first component (M20) and the second component (M10) at a predetermined distance, with the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second electrical contacts (E10) opposing each other; and
-activating the first capsules (15) (e.g., outflowed) so that the one or more electrically conductive particles (C15) are released and arrange at least one of the first component (M20) on the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second component (M10) on the second electrical contacts (E10), and form an electrically conductive structure (N15a, C15a) comprising the one or more of the electrically conductive particles (C15).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu does not explicitly teach wherein the first capsulates are each connected to at least one second capsule.
Tanaka teaches, Fig. 1B, the first capsulates (center 10) are each connected to at least one second capsule (left & right 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
341
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As taught by Tanaka, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first capsulates are each connected to at least one second capsule as claimed, because it aids in improving physical connection reliability between first & second components. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Tanaka in combination with Chu due to above reason.
Re claim 2, Chu teaches, Figs. 8A-C, the capsules (15) are activated after the first component (M20) and the second component (M10) have been arranged with the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second electrical contacts (E10) opposing each other.
Re claim 3, Chu teaches, Fig. 8A, [0136], the one or more electrically conductive particles (C15) are contained in first capsules (15), and wherein the method further comprises: applying second capsules (other 15) comprising an electrically insulating material (insulating shell portion S15) to at least one of the first component and the second component (M10).
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as modified by Tanaka as applied to claims 1 & 3 above, in view of Park (US 2002/0185746).
The teachings of Chu/Tanaka have been discussed above.
Re claim 7, Chu/Tanaka does not explicitly teach the first capsules and the second capsules are activated sequentially in time.
Park teaches, Figs. 3A-D, [0038-0045], the first capsules (215) and the second capsules (230) are activated sequentially in time.
As taught by Park, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first capsules a and the at least one second capsule are activated sequentially in time as claimed, because it aids in achieving a uniform interval between a chip and a substrate.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Park in combination with Chu/Tanaka due to above reason.
8. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as modified by Tanaka as applied to claims 1 & 3 above, and further in view of Fork et al. (US 2007/0023907).
The teachings of Chu/Tanaka have been discussed above.
Re claim 8, Chu/Tanaka does not explicitly teach at least one of the following elements is functionalized with a functional group: the capsules, the first capsules, the one or more electrically conductive particles, the first electrical contacts, the second electrical contacts, and the second capsules comprising the electrically insulating material.
Fork teaches, Figs. 3-6, “contact pad 104 is a gold contact pad with a thiol compound binding layer” [0022] & “the layer on the particle comprises acetylene functional groups and the layer on the contact pad comprises azide groups” [0028].
As taught by Fork, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Chu to obtain at least one of the following elements is functionalized with a functional group: the capsules, the first capsules, the one or more electrically conductive particles, the first electrical contacts, the second electrical contacts, and the second capsules comprising the electrically insulating material as claimed, because it aids in improving particle adhesion & electrical contact between interconnecting chips.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Fork in combination with Chu/Tanaka due to above reason.
Re claim 10, in combination cited above, Fork teaches, Figs. 3-6, [0022, 0028], functionalizing the capsules (particles) with a functional group (e.g., acetylene);
functionalizing at least one of the first electrical contacts and the second electrical contacts (104) with a functional group (e.g., thiol); and
covalently bonding at least part of the capsules (304) to at least one of the first electrical contacts and the second electrical contacts (104).
9. Claims 1 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2017/0062374) in view of Fork et al. (US 2007/0023907).
Re claim 1, Chu teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-3, 8A-C & 9, [0100, 0106, 0107, 0133, 0136-0138], a method of manufacturing an electronics unit with a first component (chip M20) with a plurality of first electrical contacts (E20), comprising an integrated circuit (of chip), and a second component (substrate M10) with a plurality of second electrical contacts (E10), the method comprising:
-providing first capsules (15, similar to 10, 11) each containing one or more electrically conductive particles (core C15), wherein the first capsules are connected to at least one second capsulate (other 15) (in 150);
-applying the first capsules (15) and the second capsulates (other 15) to at least one of the first component (M20) and the second component (M10),
-arranging the first component (M20) and the second component (M10) at a predetermined distance, with the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second electrical contacts (E10) opposing each other; and
-activating the first capsules (15) (e.g., outflowed) so that the one or more electrically conductive particles (C15) are released and arrange at least one of the first component (M20) on the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second component (M10) on the second electrical contacts (E10), and form an electrically conductive structure (N15a, C15a) comprising the one or more of the electrically conductive particles (C15).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu does not explicitly teach wherein the first capsulates are each connected to at least one second capsule.
Fork teaches, Figs. 33-34, [0055], the first capsulates (left 3304) are each connected to at least one second capsule (right 3304).
PNG
media_image4.png
169
203
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
170
185
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As taught by Fork, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the first capsulates are each connected to at least one second capsule as claimed, because it aids in improving particle adhesion & electrical contact between interconnecting chips. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Fork in combination with Chu due to above reason.
Re claim 31, Chu teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-3, 8A-C & 9, [0100, 0106, 0107, 0133, 0136-0138], a method of manufacturing an electronics unit with a first component (chip M20) with a plurality of first electrical contacts (E20), comprising an integrated circuit (of chip), and a second component (substrate M10) with a plurality of second electrical contacts (E10), the method comprising:
-providing first capsules (15, similar to 10, 11) each containing one or more electrically conductive particles (core C15), wherein the first capsules are connected to at least one second capsulate (other 15) (in 150), which includes an electrical insulating material (S15),
-applying the first capsules (15) and the second capsulates (other 15) to at least one of the first components (M20) and the second component (M10),
-arranging the first component (M20) and the second components (M10) at a predetermined distance, with the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second electrical contacts (E10) opposing each other; and
-activating the first capsules (15) (e.g., outflowed) so that the one or more electrically conductive particles (C15) are released and arrange at least one of the first component (M20) on the first electrical contacts (E20) and the second component (M10) on the second electrical contacts (E10), and form an electrically conductive structure (N15a, C15a) comprising the one or more of the electrically conductive particles (C15).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chu does not explicitly teach wherein the first capsulates are each connected to at least one second capsule, thereby forming a plurality of double-capsulates.
Fork teaches, Figs. 33-34, [0055], the first capsulates (left 3304) are each connected to at least one second capsule (right 3304), thereby forming a plurality of double-capsulates (3 pairs of particles).
As taught by Fork, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & utilize the above teaching to obtain the first capsulates are each connected to at least one second capsule, thereby forming a plurality of double-capsulates as claimed, because it aids in improving particle adhesion & electrical contact between interconnecting chips. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Fork in combination with Chu due to above reason.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
11. 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 DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/10/26