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
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) 1,2,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuzono (PG Pub 2007/0194464 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuzono teaches a component-embedded structure for warpage suppression, comprising: a first frame (14, fig. 3); a second frame (16) disposed within the first frame; at least one component (13) disposed within the second frame, wherein the first frame has a greater height than that of the second frame; and an insulating material (epoxy 15, paragraph [0047]) filled between the first frame and the second frame, and between the second frame and the component.
Regarding claim 2, Fukuzono teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 1, wherein there is a space between the first frame and the second frame (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuzono teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 1, wherein there is a space between the second frame and the component (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (PG Pub 2016/0105980 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mori teaches a component-embedded structure for warpage suppression, comprising: a first frame (topmost layer of 4, fig. 2); a first ladder (middle layer of 4) adjacent to the first frame, wherein the first frame has a greater height than that of the first ladder, and the first frame has corresponding grooves (filled by 11); and at least one component (2) disposed within the first frame and the first ladder.
Regarding claim 9, Mori teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 8, wherein the corresponding grooves have the same height (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Mori teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 9, wherein the grooves are located above the component (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8,9,11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al (PG Pub 2013/0154085 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches a component-embedded structure for warpage suppression, comprising: a first frame (442 and portion directly below it, figs. 4 and 5); a first ladder (442) adjacent to the first frame, wherein the first frame has a greater height than that of the first ladder, and the first frame has corresponding grooves (462); and at least one component (412) disposed within the first frame and the first ladder.
Regarding claim 9, Mori teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 8, wherein the corresponding grooves have the same height (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Mori teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 9, wherein the grooves extend downward beyond the component (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Mori teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 9, wherein the grooves are concave arc (fig. 4) or concave square.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (PG Pub 2014/0167243 A1) and Chen et al (PG Pub 2025/0006572 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches a component-embedded structure for warpage suppression, comprising: a first frame (200, fig. 6); at least one component (100); and an encapsulating material (400).
Shen does not teach the encapsulating material to be insulating.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the encapsulating material 400 insulating, for the known benefit of avoiding shorting interconnects under the component.
Shen does not teach a second frame.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches a second frame (130b, fig. 6) disposed within the first frame (130a), for the benefit of improving heat dissipation (paragraph [0078]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose a second frame within the first frame, for the benefit of improving heat dissipation.
Shen in view of Chen teaches the “at least one component disposed within the second frame, wherein the first frame has a greater height than that of the second frame” and the “insulating material filled between the first frame and the second frame, and between the second frame and the component.”
Regarding claim 3, Shen in view of Chen teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 1, wherein the insulating material covers the second frame and the component (fig. 6 of Shen and fig. 6 of Chen), and the insulating material has a height equal to the height of the first frame.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (PG Pub 2014/0167243 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shen teaches a component-embedded structure for warpage suppression, comprising: a first frame (taller portion of 260, fig. 6B); a first ladder (shorter portion of 260) adjacent to the first frame, wherein the first frame has a greater height than that of the first ladder; at least one component (100) disposed within the first frame and the first ladder; and an encapsulating material (440) filled between the first frame and the component.
Shen does not teach the encapsulating material to be insulating.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the encapsulating material 440 insulating, for the known benefit of avoiding shorting interconnects under the component.
Regarding claim 6, Shen teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 5, wherein the insulating material covers the first ladder and the component, and the insulating material has a height equal to the height of the first frame (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 7, Shen teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 5, wherein there is a space between the first ladder and the component (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 13, Shen teaches (see claim 5) a component-embedded structure for warpage suppression, comprising: a first frame; a first ladder adjacent to the first frame, wherein the first frame has a greater height than that of the first ladder, and the first ladder is located inside a part of the first frame; at least one component disposed within the first frame and the first ladder; and an insulating material filled between the first frame and the component.
Regarding claim 14, Shen teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 13, wherein the insulating material covers the first ladder and the component, and the insulating material has a height equal to the height of the first frame (fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 15, Shen teaches the component-embedded structure for warpage suppression as claimed in claim 13, wherein there is a space between the first ladder and the component (fig. 6B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899