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 6/2/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-14 are being examined in this Office Action.
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.
2. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2024/0072000) in view of Kim et al. (KR 101778433).
Re claim 1, Park teaches, under BRI, Fig. 3, [0026, 0027, 0032, 0033, 0053, 0057], an electronic device, comprising:
-a substrate (210, 220) comprising:
a substrate inner side (e.g., top side);
a substrate outer side (e.g., bottom side) opposite to the substrate inner side;
substrate lateral sides (e.g., sidewalls) connecting the substrate inner side to the substrate outer side;
a dielectric structure (220);
a conductive structure (wiring layers & patterns in 210, 220) comprising:
substrate inward terminals (upper wiring layers) adjacent to the substrate inner side; and
substrate outward terminals (lower wirings & patterns 202, 212) adjacent to the substrate outer side; and
a substrate internal pad (206) (*) adjacent to the substrate inner side;
-a first electronic component (left 310) coupled to the substrate inward terminals (upper wiring layers) and comprising:
a first lower side (e.g., bottom side) proximate to the substrate inner side;
a first upper side (e.g., upper side) opposite to the first lower side; and
a first lateral side (e.g., sidewall) connecting the first lower side to the first upper side;
-a second electronic component (right 310) coupled to the substrate inward terminals (upper wiring layers), laterally spaced apart from the first electronic component (left 310), and comprising:
a second lower side (e.g., bottom side);
a second upper side (e.g., upper side) opposite to the second lower side: and
a second lateral side (e.g., sidewall) connecting the second lower side to the second upper side:
-an underfill (360) between the first lower side of the first electronic component (left 310) and between the second lower side of the second electronic component (right 310) and substrate inner side (e.g., top side), and covering the substrate internal pad (206) (*); and
-an encapsulant (370) covering a portion of the substrate inner side, a portion of the underfill (360); a portion of the first electronic component (left 310), and a portion of the second electronic component (right 310),
wherein:
the substrate internal pad (206) (*) extends laterally between the first electronic component and the second electronic component (left right 31) and is positioned such that a first portion of the substrate internal pad (206) underlies a lateral edge region of the first electronic component (left 310), and a second portion of the substrate internal pad (206) underlies a lateral edge region of the second electronic component (right 310) (in vertical direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park teaches the pad (206) includes same material as pad (204) [0028], but does not explicitly (*) a substrate internal stiffener.
Kim teaches, Fig. 3g, page 5, 6th par., a substrate internal stiffener (222).
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Kim to obtain a substrate internal stiffener as claimed, because it aids in suppressing/preventing a warp phenomenon of a substrate in the formed device.
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 Kim in combination with Park due to above reason.
Re claim 2, in combination cited above, Park teaches, Figs. 2 & 4, wherein: the substrate internal stiffener (206) (see Kim’s teaching) comprises a linear transverse element extending between opposing sides of the substrate (210).
Re claim 3, Park teaches, Fig. 3, wherein: the encapsulant (370) comprises an encapsulant top side (upper side of 370); the first upper side of the first electronic component (left 310) and the second upper side of the second electronic component (right 310) are exposed from the encapsulant top side; the underfill (360) is laterally between the first electronic component and the second electronic component (left right 310); a portion (center portion) of the encapsulant top side is between the first electronic component and the second electronic component (left right 310); and the portion of the encapsulant top side contacts the underfill (360).
Re claim 4, in combination cited above, Park teaches, Figs. 2 & 4, wherein: the substrate internal stiffener (260) underlies the lateral side edge region of the first electronic component (left 310) a length (D1); and Kim teaches, Fig. 3d, wherein the substrate internal stiffener (222) has a first thickness, the substrate inward terminals (111a) comprise a second thickness; and the first thickness is different than the second thickness.
Park/Kim does not explicitly teach the length about 50 microns to about 200 microns.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular length, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the length is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the length is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another length. Indeed, it has been held that mere length limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed length, because a change in length would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Re claim 5, in combination cited above, Park teaches, Fig. 16, [0077], wherein: the substrate (400) comprises a redistribution layer (RDL) substrate (400), the substrate (400) comprises a pair of opposing lateral sides (both sidewalls of 400); and Kim teaches, Fig. 3e, col. 3, 9th par., the substrate internal stiffener (223) comprises metal and is electrically coupled to a first one of the substrate inward terminals (111a); the substrate internal stiffener (223) extends generally perpendicular (horizontal direction) between the pair of opposing lateral sides (both sidewalls of 110) (vertical direction); and ends of the substrate internal stiffener (223) are inset from the pair of opposing lateral sides of the substrate (110).
Re claims 6 & 7, in combination cited above, Kim teaches, Fig. 9c, page 8, 8th par., an external stiffener structure (420) coupled to the substrate outer side (of 110); wherein the substrate outer side comprises a peripheral region (external region); and the external stiffener structure (420) extends along the peripheral region.
Re claim 9, in combination cited above, Kim33 teaches, Figs. 3d & 8, page 12, external interconnects (bumps 116, 150) coupled to the conductive structure (111a, b) proximate to the substrate outer side and comprising a first external interconnect (in middle) and a second external interconnect (in both sides) laterally separated from the first external interconnect; wherein: the external stiffener structure (120, 420) comprises a substrate external stiffener (420) interposed between the first external interconnect (middle 116, 150) and the second external interconnect (side 116, 150); and the substrate internal stiffener (120) and the substrate external stiffener (420) are vertically aligned in a cross-sectional view.
Re claim 10, in combination cited above, Kim33 teaches, Fig. 3e, page 3, 9th par., wherein the substrate internal stiffener (223) comprises a conductor (e.g., metal) and is electrically coupled to the conductive structure of the substrate (110).
Re claim 11, Park teaches, under BRI, Fig. 3, [0026, 0032, 0033, 0053, 0057], an electronic device, comprising:
-a substrate (21, 220) comprising:
a substrate inner side (e.g. top side);
a substrate outer side (e.g., bottom side) opposite to the substrate inner side;
substrate lateral sides (sidewalls) connecting the substrate inner side to the substrate outer side;
a dielectric structure (220);
a conductive structure (wiring layers and patterns) comprising substrate inward terminals (upper wiring layers) adjacent to the substrate inner side, and substrate outward terminals (lower wirings & patterns 202, 212) adjacent to the substrate outer side; and
a substrate internal pad (206) (*) adjacent to the substrate inner side;
-a first electronic component (left 310) coupled to the substrate inward terminals and comprising:
a first lower side (bottom side) proximate to the substrate inner side (top side);
a first upper side (top side) opposite to the first lower side; and
a first lateral side (sidewall) connecting the first lower side to the first upper side;
-a second electronic component (right 310) coupled to the substrate inward terminals, laterally spaced apart from the first electronic component (left 310), and comprising:
a second lower side (bottom side);
a second upper side (top side) opposite to the second lower side; and
a second lateral side (sidewall) connecting the second lower side to the second upper side;
and an encapsulant (370) covering a portion of the substrate inner side (top side), a portion of the first electronic component (left 310), and a portion of the second electronic component (right 310);
wherein:
the first lateral side of the first electronic component (left 310) is spaced from the second lateral side of the second electronic component (right 310) by a component gap (filled by 370 between left right 310);
the substrate internal pad (206) (*) is between the first electronic component and the second electronic component (left right 310);
the substrate internal pad (206) (*) comprises a width; and
the width of the substrate internal pad (206) (*) is greater than the component gap (filled by 370) (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park teaches the pad (206) includes same material as pad (204) [0028], but does not explicitly (*) a substrate internal stiffener.
Kim teaches, Fig. 3g, page 5, 6th par., a substrate internal stiffener (222).
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Kim to obtain a substrate internal stiffener as claimed, because it aids in suppressing/preventing a warp phenomenon of a substrate in the formed device.
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 Kim in combination with Park due to above reason.
Re claim 12, Park/Kim does not explicitly teach wherein: a center of the substrate integral stiffener is lateral offset from a center of the component gap.
Kim does teach, Fig. 3d, various positions of the stiffeners (222, 223) over substrate (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ/modify the teaching as taught by Kim into Park to obtain a center of the substrate integral stiffener is lateral offset from a center of the component gap as claimed, because it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 13, in combination cited above, Park teaches, Figs. 2-4, [0053], component interconnects (350) coupling the first lower side of the first electronic component (left 310) and the second lower side of the second electronic component (right 310) to the conductive structure (wirings and patterns); and an underfill (360) surrounding the component interconnects (350); wherein: the substrate internal stiffener (206) (see Kim’s teaching) underlies the first lateral side of the first electronic component (left 310) and the second lateral side of the second electronic component (right 310); and
Kim teaches, Fig. 3e, page 3, 9th par., the substrate internal stiffener (223) comprises a conductor and is electrically coupled to a first one of the substrate inward terminals (111b).
Re claim 14, in combination cited above, Park teaches, Figs. 2-4, an underfill (360) between the first lower side of the first electronic component (left 310) and the substrate inner side (top side of 210, 220), between the second lower side of the second electronic component (right 310) and the substrate inner side, and covering the substrate internal stiffener (206) (see Kim’s teaching); wherein: the substrate internal stiffener (206) extends to underlie the first lateral side of the first electronic component (left 310) by a length (D1); the encapsulant (370) covers a portion of the underfill (360);
Kim teaches, Fig. 8, a substrate external stiffener (420) adjacent to the substrate outer side and the substrate external stiffener (420) and the substrate internal stiffener (120) are vertically aligned in a cross-sectional view.
Park/Kim does not explicitly teach the length about 50 microns to about 200 microns.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular length, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the length is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the length is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another length. Indeed, it has been held that mere length limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed length, because a change in length would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 8 is 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
4. 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
5. 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 6/15/26
Prosecution Insights