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 .
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dangelmaier et al. (US 2006/0175691).
Regarding claim 1, Dangelmaier teaches (FIG. 1 – 2):
A package structure, comprising:
a package substrate (12); and
a printed circuit board on the package substrate, wherein the printed circuit board comprises:
a board body, wherein the board body includes an annular structure, and the annular structure exposes a portion of the package substrate configured to receive a die (frame 14); and
a metal pin on the board body (leads 16), wherein the metal pin extends beyond the board body in a direction parallel to a top surface of the package substrate, the metal pin is configured to connect to an external circuit (FIG. 1, 2), and the metal pin is further configured to connect to the die in response to the die being on the package substrate (wire 22).
Regarding claim 5, Dangelmaier teaches (FIG. 1):
The package structure according to claim 1, wherein the board body comprises;
a first part on an upper surface of the package substrate, wherein the first part includes the annular structure, and
a second part on at least one side wall of the package substrate, wherein the first part is integral with the second part
Regarding claim 7, Dangelmaier teaches:
The package structure according to claim 1, further comprising a protective lid covering the printed circuit board ([0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Dangelmaier teaches:
A package method, comprising:
fastening a die (20) on a package substrate (12);
fastening a printed circuit board on the package substrate, wherein the printed circuit board comprises:
a board body, wherein the board body includes an annular structure, and the annular structure surrounds the die fastened to the package substrate (frame 14); and
a metal pin (lead 16) on the board body, wherein the metal pin extends beyond the board body in a direction parallel to a top surface of the package substrate, and the metal pin is configured to connect to an external circuit; and
connecting the metal pin and the die (wire 22).
Regarding claim 13, Dangelmaier teaches (FIG. 1):
The package method according to claim 9, wherein the board body comprises:
a first part on an upper surface of the package substrate, wherein the first part includes the annular structure, and
a second part on at least one side wall of the package substrate, wherein the first part and the second part are integral.
Regarding claim 15, Dangelmaier teaches:
The package method according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
covering the printed circuit board with a protective lid ([0022]).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangelmaier et al. (US 2006/0175691).
Regarding claim 2, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package structure according to claim 1, wherein a thickness range of the metal pin is 0.04 millimeter to 1 millimeter.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metal pin leads of Dangelmaier of whatever thickness was necessary or expedient for the particular device, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed thickness range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any standard thickness lead structure.
Regarding claim 3, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package structure according to claim 1, wherein a length range of the metal pin extending beyond the board body is 0.2 millimeter to 20 millimeters.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metal pin leads of Dangelmaier of whatever length was necessary or expedient for the particular device, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed length range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any standard length lead structure.
Regarding claim 10, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package method according to claim 9, wherein a thickness range of the metal pin is 0.04 millimeter to 1 millimeter.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metal pin leads of Dangelmaier of whatever thickness was necessary or expedient for the particular device, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed thickness range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any standard thickness lead structure.
Regarding claim 11, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package method according to claim 9, wherein a length range of the metal pin extending beyond the board body is 0.2 millimeter to 20 millimeters.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metal pin leads of Dangelmaier of whatever length was necessary or expedient for the particular device, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed length range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any standard length lead structure.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangelmaier et al. (US 2006/0175691) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Grabbe (US 4,079,511).
Regarding claim 4, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package structure according to claim 1, wherein the metal pin extending beyond the board body is bent toward the package substrate.
However, Grabbe teaches (FIG. 13) a sealed package structure having leads that are bent towards the package after straight leads are separated from the leadframe.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the straight leads of Dangelmaier to be bent towards the package as disclosed by Grabbe in a well-known and predicatable manner for the further advantage of enabling additional mounting options of the device package.
Regarding claim 12, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package method according to claim 9, further comprising bending the metal pin toward the package substrate.
However, Grabbe teaches (FIG. 13) a sealed package structure having leads that are bent towards the package after straight leads are separated from the leadframe.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the straight leads of Dangelmaier to be bent towards the package as disclosed by Grabbe in a well-known and predicatable manner for the further advantage of enabling additional mounting options of the device package.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangelmaier et al. (US 2006/0175691) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Cuoco et al. (US 2019/0006286).
Regarding claim 6, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package structure according to claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board further comprises a conductive wire on the board body.
However, Cuoco teaches an embedded die package structure including guard wires 410/420 for shielding or distorting electromagnetic fields.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include conductive wires in whatever locations were necessary or expedient to shield or distort electromagnetic fields within the package of Danglemaier as disclosed by Cuoco in a well-known and predictable manner.
Regarding claim 14, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package method according to claim 9, wherein the printed circuit board further comprises a conductive wire on the board body.
However, Cuoco teaches an embedded die package structure including guard wires 410/420 for shielding or distorting electromagnetic fields.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include conductive wires in whatever locations were necessary or expedient to shield or distort electromagnetic fields within the package of Danglemaier as disclosed by Cuoco in a well-known and predictable manner.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangelmaier et al. (US 2006/0175691) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Dry et al. (US 2016/0240511).
Regarding claim 8, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package structure according to claim 1, further comprising an insulation gel bonded to the package substrate and the printed circuit board.
However, Dry teaches carrier 12 and ring body 20 are connected with material 50 which may be a non-conductive adhesive. Such adhesives are well-known in the art to be readily applied in the form of a gel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an insulating adhesive where necessary or expedient to bond non-conductive elements of Dangelmaier as disclosed by Dry in a well-known and predictable manner.
Regarding claim 16, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package method according to claim 9, further comprising: bonding the printed circuit board to the package substrate using insulation gel.
However, Dry teaches carrier 12 and ring body 20 are connected with material 50 which may be a non-conductive adhesive. Such adhesives are well-known in the art to be readily applied in the form of a gel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an insulating adhesive where necessary or expedient to bond non-conductive elements of Dangelmaier as disclosed by Dry in a well-known and predictable manner.
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangelmaier et al. (US 2006/0175691) in view of Cuoco et al. (US 2019/0006286).
Regarding claim 17, Dangelmaier teaches:
A package structure, comprising:
a package substrate (12); and
a printed circuit board (14) on the package substrate, wherein the printed circuit board comprises:
a board body, wherein the board body includes an annular structure (FIG. 2), and the annular structure exposes a portion of the package substrate configured to receive at least one die (20); and
a plurality of metal pins (leads 16) on the board body, wherein each of the plurality of metal pins extends beyond the board body in a first direction parallel to a top surface of the package substrate, each of the plurality of metal pins the metal pin is configured to connect to an external circuit, and each of the plurality of metal pins is further configured to connect to a corresponding die of the at least one die in response to the at least one die being on the package substrate (wire 22).
Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose a first conductive wire extending in the first direction across an opening in the annular structure.
However, Cuoco teaches an embedded die package structure including guard wires 410/420 for shielding or distorting electromagnetic fields.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include conductive wires in whatever locations were necessary or expedient to shield or distort electromagnetic fields within the package of Danglemaier as disclosed by Cuoco in a well-known and predictable manner.
Regarding claim 18, Dangelmaier fails to expressly disclose:
The package structure of claim 17, further comprising:
a second conductive wire extending beyond the annular structure in a second direction parallel to the top surface of the package substrate, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction.
However, Cuoco teaches an embedded die package structure including guard wires 410/420 for shielding or distorting electromagnetic fields.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include conductive wires in whatever locations were necessary or expedient to shield or distort electromagnetic fields within the package of Danglemaier as disclosed by Cuoco in a well-known and predictable manner.
Regarding claim 19, Dangelmaier teaches:
The package structure of claim 17, further comprising a plurality of dies, including the at least one die, on the package substrate (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 20, *** teaches:
The package structure of claim 19, wherein the first conductive wire is between, in a plan view, a first die of the plurality of dies and a second die of the plurality of dies.
However, Cuoco teaches an embedded die package structure including guard wires 410/420 for shielding or distorting electromagnetic fields.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include conductive wires in whatever locations were necessary or expedient to shield or distort electromagnetic fields within the package of Danglemaier as disclosed by Cuoco in a well-known and predictable manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624