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 Claims
Preliminary amendment filed 27 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7, 8, 12, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-19, and 21-24 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species b, claims 1-6, 9-11, and 13-19, in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7, 8, 12, and 20 would have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. However, these claims were canceled in the election made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 April 2026.
As best understood by Examiner, new claims 21-24 read on elected species b and will be examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement filed 5 January 2024 has been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 1-4, 13, and 23, “a width of a first void in the first portion is less than a width of a second void in the second portion,” “a number of the second voids in the second portion is greater than a number of the first voids in the first portion,” “the second void in the second portion has a strip shape,” “wherein the width of the second void increases toward the first pad,” “the wire bundle structure has a lower surface concave toward [ ] a bottom surface of the trench,” and, “the first pad defines a first trench accommodating the wire bundle structure and a second trench accommodating the additional wire bundle structure,” respectively must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the subject matter of claims 1-4, 13, and 23, “a width of a first void in the first portion is less than a width of a second void in the second portion,” “a number of the second voids in the second portion is greater than a number of the first voids in the first portion,” “the second void in the second portion has a strip shape,” “wherein the width of the second void increases toward the first pad,” “the wire bundle structure has a lower surface concave toward [ ] a bottom surface of the trench,” and, “the first pad defines a first trench accommodating the wire bundle structure and a second trench accommodating the additional wire bundle structure,” respectively must find support in the specification.
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.
Claim 23 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation, “the first pad defines a first trench accommodating the wire bundle structure and a second trench accommodating the additional wire bundle structure.” The disclosure as originally filed fails to provide support for wherein the first pad defines first and second trenches. Claim 1, off which claim 23 depends, defines the first pad as having a wire bundle structure protruding therefrom. Accordingly, the first pad corresponds to one of elements (210) and (220). These elements do not define trenches. Rather, the second pad (one of 110 or 120) defines first and second trenches.
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.
Claims 1-6, 13, 14, and 21-24 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a width of a first void in the first portion is less than a width of a second void in the second portion.” It is unclear how a width of a first void in the first portion is less than a width of a second void in the second portion. A preceding passage of claim 1 recites, “a wire bundle structure protruded from the first pad.” Paragraph [0032] of the specification discloses, “the wires 31W, 32W, and 33W are protruded from or out of the surface 211 of the pad 210.” Accordingly, the first pad corresponds to one of elements (210) and (220). The first portion is claimed as closer to the first pad (210 or 220) than to the second pad (110 or 120). The first void is in the first portion and the second void is in the second portion. Thus, the first void must correspond to element (V2) and the second void must correspond to element (V1). However, paragraph [0037] of the specification discloses, “a width W4 of the void V2 in the portion 312 is greater than a width W3 of the void V1 in the portion 311,” in contradiction to the claim which requires a width of a first void in the first portion to be less than a width of a second void in the second portion. As best understood by Examiner, a width of a first void in the first portion is greater than a width of a second void in the second section.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “a number of the second voids in the second portion is greater than a number of the first voids in the first portion.” It is unclear how a number of the second voids (V1) in the second portion is greater than a number of the first voids (V2) in the first portion. Paragraph [0037] of the specification discloses, “a number of the voids V2 in the portion 312 is greater than a number of the voids V1 in the portion 311.” As best understood by Examiner, a number of the second voids in the second portion is less than a number of the first voids in the first portion.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “the second void in the second portion has a strip shape.” It is unclear how the second void (V1) in the second portion has a strip shape. Paragraph [0037] of the specification discloses, “the void V2 has a strip shape.” As best understood by Examiner, the first void in the first portion has a strip shape.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “wherein the width of the second void increases toward the first pad.” It is unclear how the width of the second void (V1) increases toward the first pad (210 or 220). Paragraph [0037] of the specification discloses, “the width W4 of the void V2 increases toward the pad 210.” As best understood by Examiner, the width of the first void increases toward the first pad.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “the wire bundle structure has a lower surface concave toward [ ] a bottom surface of the trench.” It is unclear how the wire bundle structure has a lower surface concave toward a bottom surface of the trench. As best understood by Examiner, the wire bundle structure (30) has a lower surface (31b-36b) convex toward a bottom surface (101) of the trench (110T)
Claim 23 recites the limitation, “the first pad defines a first trench accommodating the wire bundle structure and a second trench accommodating the additional wire bundle structure.” It is unclear how the first pad defines first and second trenches. Claim 1, off which claim 23 depends, defines the first pad as having a wire bundle structure protruding therefrom. Accordingly, the first pad corresponds to one of elements (210) and (220). These elements do not define trenches. Rather, the second pad (one of 110 or 120) defines first and second trenches.
Claims 5, 6, 14, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected for merely containing the flaws of the parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 15-17, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Patent 8,076,177, hereinafter Chen ‘177) in view of Summerfelt et al. (US Patent 11,195,811, hereinafter Summerfelt ‘811), both of record.
With respect to claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, Chen ‘177 teaches (FIG. 7) a bonding structure substantially as claimed, comprising:
a first pad (306) (col. 4, ln. 53 – col. 5, ln. 3); and
a wire (402) protruded from the first pad (306) and tapering away from the first pad, wherein the wire comprises a first portion (upper portion) and a second portion (lower portion), the first portion is closer to the first pad than the second portion is (col. 5, ln. 4-17).
Thus, Chen ‘177 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the wire is a wire bundle structure; and
in a cross-sectional view perspective, a width of a first void in the first portion is less than a width of a second void in the second portion.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a wire bundle structure (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52). When the wire bundle structure (116 and 118) of Summerfelt ‘811 replaces the wire (402) of Chen ‘177, a width of a first void in the first portion would be less than a width of a second void in the second portion (see interpretation provided in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claim) because of the taper shape provided by the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177. The wire bundle structure would have a greater relative density within the narrower second portion than in the wider first portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the wire of Chen ‘177 as a wire bundle structure, wherein in a cross-sectional view perspective, a width of a first void in the first portion is less than a width of a second void in the second portion as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
With respect to claims 2-4, as best understood by Examiner, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 1 above, but primary reference Chen ‘177 does not explicitly teach the additional limitations wherein the first portion has a plurality of the first voids, the second portion has a plurality of the second voids, and a number of the second voids in the second portion is greater than a number of the first voids in the first portion; wherein in the cross-sectional view perspective, the second void in the second portion has a strip shape; and wherein the width of the second void increases toward the first pad.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a wire bundle structure (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52). When the wire bundle structure (116 and 118) of Summerfelt ‘811 replaces the wire (402) of Chen ‘177, the first portion would have a plurality of the first voids, the second portion would have a plurality of the second voids, and a number of the second voids in the second portion would necessarily be greater than a number of the first voids in the first portion; the second void in the second portion would have a strip shape; and the width of the second void would increase toward the first pad because of the taper shape provided by the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177. The wire bundle structure would have a greater relative density within the narrower second portion than in the wider first portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bonding structure of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 wherein the first portion has a plurality of the first voids, the second portion has a plurality of the second voids, and a number of the second voids in the second portion is greater than a number of the first voids in the first portion; wherein in the cross-sectional view perspective, the second void in the second portion has a strip shape; and wherein the width of the second void increases toward the first pad as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 1 above, with primary reference Chen ‘177 teaching the additional limitations further comprising a second pad (106, 108, and 202) having a recess for accommodating the wire (402), wherein in the cross-sectional view perspective, the recess has a first lateral sidewall and a second lateral sidewall opposite to the first lateral sidewall, and a distance between the first lateral sidewall and the second lateral sidewall increases toward the first pad (306); and wherein the first lateral sidewall is inclined with respect to a surface of the first pad facing the second pad, and the first lateral sidewall is configured to guide the wire to gather toward a direction away from the first pad (col. 2, ln. 66 – col. 4, ln. 15).
Thus, Chen ‘177 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of wherein the wire is a wire bundle structure comprising a plurality of wires.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as wire bundle structure comprising a plurality of wires (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52). When the plurality of wires (116 and 118) of Summerfelt ‘811 replaces the wire (402) of Chen ‘177, the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177 would cause the plurality of wires of the wire bundle structure to gather toward a direction away from the first pad.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the wire of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 as a wire bundle structure comprising a plurality of wires as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
With respect to claim 9, Chen ‘177 teaches (FIG. 7) a bonding structure substantially as claimed, comprising:
a first pad (106, 108, and 202) (col. 2, ln. 66 – col. 3, ln. 13; col. 3, ln. 41 – col. 4, ln. 15);
a second pad (306) over the first pad (106, 108, and 202) (col. 4, ln. 53 – col. 5, ln. 3); and
a wire (402) connecting the first pad (106, 108, and 202) to the second pad (306) and at least partially tapering in a direction from the second pad toward the first pad, wherein the wire comprises a first portion (lower portion) connected to the first pad and a second portion (upper portion) connected to the second pad (col. 5, ln. 4-17).
Thus, Chen ‘177 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the wire is a wire bundle structure; and
an aspect ratio of a void in the second portion is greater than an aspect ratio of a void in the first portion.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a wire bundle structure (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52). When the wire bundle structure (116 and 118) of Summerfelt ‘811 replaces the wire (402) of Chen ‘177, an aspect ratio of a void in the second portion is greater than an aspect ratio of a void in the first portion because of the taper shape provided by the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177. The wire bundle structure would have a lesser relative density within the wider second portion than in the narrower first portion, and thus a greater aspect ratio of a void.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the wire of Chen ‘177 as a wire bundle structure, wherein an aspect ratio of a void in the second portion is greater than an aspect ratio of a void in the first portion as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 9 above, but primary reference Chen ‘177 does not explicitly teach the additional limitations wherein the void in the second portion extends in a direction toward the first portion; and wherein a width of the void in the second portion is greater than a width of the void in the first portion.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a wire bundle structure (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52). When the wire bundle structure (116 and 118) of Summerfelt ‘811 replaces the wire (402) of Chen ‘177, the void in the second portion would extend in a direction toward the first portion; and a width of the void in the second portion would be greater than a width of the void in the first portion because of the taper shape provided by the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177. The wire bundle structure would have a lesser relative density within the wider second portion than in the narrower first portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bonding structure of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 wherein the void in the second portion extends in a direction toward the first portion; and wherein a width of the void in the second portion is greater than a width of the void in the first portion as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
With respect to claim 15, Chen ‘177 teaches (FIG. 7) a package structure substantially as claimed, comprising:
a first substrate (104, 108, and 202) comprising a guiding structure (108 and 202) (col. 3, ln. 41 – col. 4, ln. 15);
a second substrate (304) over the first substrate (104, 108, and 202) (col. 4, ln. 53 – col. 5, ln. 3); and
a wire (402) electrically connected to the first substrate (104, 108, and 202) and the second substrate (304) and at least partially contacting the guiding structure (108 and 202) (col. 5, ln. 4-17).
Thus, Chen ‘177 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the wire is a plurality of wires;
wherein the guiding structure is configured to reduce entanglement of the wires.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a plurality of wires (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52). When the plurality of wires (116 and 118) of Summerfelt ‘811 replaces the wire (402) of Chen ‘177, the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177 would be thus configured to reduce entanglement of the wires.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the wire of Chen ‘177 as a plurality of wires, wherein the guiding structure is configured to reduce entanglement of the wires as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 15 above, with primary reference Chen ‘177 teaching the additional limitation wherein the guiding structure (108 and 202) defines a first trench tapering away from the second substrate (304), the wire (402) disposed in the first trench; and wherein the guiding structure further defines a second trench (another trench as represented in FIG. 12) tapering away from the second substrate, the wire disposed in the second trench (col. 3, ln. 41 – col. 4, ln. 15; col. 4, ln. 53 – col. 5, ln. 17).
Thus, Chen ‘177 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the wire is a plurality of wires comprising a plurality of first wires and a plurality of second wires;
a spacing between the first wires decreases toward the first substrate; and
a spacing between the second wires decreases toward the first substrate.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a plurality of wires (116 and 118) comprising a plurality of first wires and a plurality of second wires (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52). When the plurality of wires (116 and 118) of Summerfelt ‘811 replaces the wire (402) of Chen ‘177, a spacing between the first wires would decrease toward the first substrate; and a spacing between the second wires would decrease toward the first substrate because of the taper shape provided by the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177. The plurality of wires would have a greater relative density in the narrower portion towards the first substrate than in the wider portion towards the second substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the wire of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 as a plurality of wires comprising a plurality of first wires and a plurality of second wires; a spacing between the first wires decreases toward the first substrate; and a spacing between the second wires decreases toward the first substrate as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
With respect to claim 19, Chen ‘177 teaches wherein the guiding structure (108 and 222) defines a first slope (interface of elements 202 and 402) adjacent to an edge of the guiding structure and a second slope (interface of elements 202 and 106) distal from the edge of the guiding structure, and a first angle defined by the first slope and a normal line of a surface of the first substrate is different from a second angle defined by the second slope and the normal line (col. 3, ln. 41 – col. 4, ln. 15).
With respect to claim 24, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 5 above, but primary reference Chen ‘177 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein the wire bundle structure and the first pad both comprise copper, and the wire bundle structure is at least partially formed integrally with the first pad without a heterogeneous interface formed therebetween.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire bundle structure (116 and 118) and a first pad (one of 104 and 106) both comprising copper, and the wire bundle structure is at least partially formed integrally with the first pad without a heterogeneous interface formed therebetween (col. 3, ln. 12-43; col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bonding structure of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 wherein the wire bundle structure and the first pad both comprise copper, and the wire bundle structure is at least partially formed integrally with the first pad without a heterogeneous interface formed therebetween as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. (US Patent 9,917,071, hereinafter Chiu ‘071).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, as best understood by Examiner, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 9 above, with primary reference Chen ‘177 teaching the additional limitations wherein the first pad (106, 108, and 202) defines a trench for accommodating the wire (402), and the wire has a lower surface concave (see interpretation provided in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claim) toward a bottom surface of the trench (col. 2, ln. 66 – col. 3, ln. 13; col. 3, ln. 41 – col. 4, ln. 15; col. 5, ln. 4-17).
Thus, Chen ‘177 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the wire is a wire bundle structure;
wherein the wire bundle structure has a lower surface at least partially spaced apart from a bottom surface of the trench; and
wherein the lower surface has a non-planar surface.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a wire bundle structure (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52).
Further, Chiu ‘071 teaches (FIGs. 1, 3, and 5) a wire (11) having a lower surface at least partially spaced apart (by element 31) from a bottom surface of a trench (defined in element 21), wherein the lower surface has a non-planar surface (see FIG. 5) to provide a high tolerance for misalignment (col. 5, ln. 31-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the wire of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 as a wire bundle structure as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials; and to have formed the wire bundle structure of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 having a lower surface at least partially spaced apart from a bottom surface of the trench, wherein the lower surface has a non-planar surface as taught by Chiu ‘071 to provide a high tolerance for misalignment.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Xie (Chinese Patent Application Publication 110265446, hereinafter Xie ‘446).
With respect to claim 18, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 17 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein a slope of a sidewall of the first trench is different from a slope of a sidewall of the second trench.
However, Xie ‘446 teaches (FIGs. 3A and 3B) a first trench (defined in PX1A) and a second trench (defined in PX2A) having different slopes to adjust the volume of said trenches ([0092]). When applied to the device of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811, trenches having different slopes would affect the degree of guiding of the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a slope of a sidewall of the first trench of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 different from a slope of a sidewall of the second trench as taught by Xie ‘446 to adjust the volume of said trenches and to affect the degree of guiding.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Uzoh (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0047307, hereinafter Uzoh ‘307).
With respect to claim 21, Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 teach the device as described in claim 5 above, with primary reference Chen ‘177 teaching the additional limitation wherein in a plan view perspective, the wire (402) has a bottom surface contacting the first pad (306) (col. 5, ln. 4-17).
Thus, Chen ‘177 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of wherein the wire is a wire bundle structure; and the bottom surface has a substantially rectangular shape.
However, Summerfelt ‘811 teaches (FIG. 10) a wire as a wire bundle structure (116 and 118) (col. 5, ln. 55-62) to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials (col. 2, ln. 40-52).
Further, Uzoh ‘307 teaches (FIG. 1) a wire (130) comprising a bottom surface having a substantially rectangular shape to attach nanomaterials to a conductive post, trace, or pad ([0075]). Still further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the wire of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 as a wire bundle structure as taught by Summerfelt ‘811 to improve strength of mechanical adhesion between components, to improve electrical and thermal conductivity between components, and to improve CTE matching with abutting materials; and to have formed the bottom surface of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811 having a substantially rectangular shape as taught by Uzoh ‘307 to attach nanomaterials to a conductive post, trace, or pad.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘177, Summerfelt ‘811, and Uzoh ‘307 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chiu ‘071.
With respect to claim 22, Chen ‘177, Summerfelt ‘811, and Uzoh ‘307 teach the device as described in claim 21 above with the exception of the additional limitation further comprising an additional wire bundle structure protruded from the first pad and arranged adjacent to the wire bundle structure along a first direction, wherein in the plan view perspective, the bottom surface of the wire bundle structure and a bottom surface of the additional wire bundle structure are aligned along the first direction.
However, Chiu ‘071 teaches (FIG. 3) a bonding structure further comprising an additional wire (11b) protruded from a first pad (11a) and arranged adjacent to a wire (another 11b) along a first direction, wherein in the plan view perspective, a bottom surface of the wire and a bottom surface of the additional wire are aligned along the first direction (col. 5, ln. 10-17) to provide a high tolerance for misalignment (col. 5, ln. 31-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bonding structure of Chen ‘177, Summerfelt ‘811, and Uzoh ‘307 further comprising an additional wire bundle structure protruded from the first pad and arranged adjacent to the wire bundle structure along a first direction, wherein in the plan view perspective, the bottom surface of the wire bundle structure and a bottom surface of the additional wire bundle structure are aligned along the first direction as taught by Chiu ‘071 to provide a high tolerance for misalignment.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘177, Summerfelt ‘811, Uzoh ‘307, and Chiu ‘071 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Xie ‘446.
With respect to claim 23, as best understood by Examiner, Chen ‘177, Summerfelt ‘811, Uzoh ‘307, and Chiu ‘071 teach the device as described in claim 22 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein in the cross-sectional view perspective, the first pad defines a first trench accommodating the wire bundle structure and a second trench accommodating the additional wire bundle structure, the first trench has a first inclined sidewall defining a first inclined angle with respect to a normal line of a surface of the first pad, the second trench has a second inclined sidewall defining a second inclined angle with respect to the normal line, and the first inclined angle is different from the second inclined angle.
However, Xie ‘446 teaches (FIGs. 3A and 3B) a first trench (defined in PX1A) and a second trench (defined in PX2A) having different slopes to adjust the volume of said trenches ([0092]). When applied to the device of Chen ‘177 and Summerfelt ‘811, trenches having different slopes would affect the degree of guiding of the guiding structure (108 and 202) of Chen ‘177.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bonding structure of Chen ‘177, Summerfelt ‘811, Uzoh ‘307, and Chiu ‘071 wherein in the cross-sectional view perspective, the first pad defines a first trench accommodating the wire bundle structure and a second trench accommodating the additional wire bundle structure, the first trench has a first inclined sidewall defining a first inclined angle with respect to a normal line of a surface of the first pad, the second trench has a second inclined sidewall defining a second inclined angle with respect to the normal line, and the first inclined angle is different from the second inclined angle as taught by Xie ‘446 to adjust the volume of said trenches and to affect the degree of guiding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Haba et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0279821), Hsu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0063159), and Hsu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0413061) teach wire bundle bonding structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights