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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 13-16 and 18-19 are 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.
● Independent claim 1 (and dependent claims 3-4 and 6-7 dependent therefrom), lines 1-10, the combination of the limitations:
1) “A structure, comprising: … a plurality of connection devices with elasticity, configured to be attached to the IC package, wherein the IC package is electrically coupled to an external device via the connection devices when a force is applied to the IC package to have the connect devices be compressed” and
2) “wherein the IC package is disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load”
is not supported by the original disclosure.
Specifically, Figs. 1-7 and related text of the present invention support a structure comprising the IC package 101 is coupled to the external device (i.e., substrate or PCB) via the connection devices 103 when the connection devices are compressed by a force application device 104, and Fig. 8 of present invention supports the process steps of attaching the IC package 101 on the external device (i.e., substrate or PCB) via the connection devices 103 when the connection devices are compressed by a force application device 104. However, none of the figures or specification support that after forming “A structure” of having the IC package “coupled” to the external device, “the IC package [101] is disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices [103] be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load” as claimed.
● Independent claim 8 (and dependent claims 9-10 and 13-14 dependent therefrom), lines 1-15, the combination of the limitations:
1) “A structure, comprising: … an interposer, having a first surface and a second surface, respectively having a plurality of up electrical pads and a plurality of bottom electrical pads formed thereupon, the up electrical pads being electrically coupled to the IC package; and a plurality of connection devices with elasticity, configured to be attached to the bottom electrical pads; wherein the IC package and the interposer are electrically coupled to an external device via the connection devices when a force is applied to the IC package to have the connect devices be compressed” and
2) “wherein the IC package and the interposer are disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load”
is not supported by the original disclosure.
Specifically, Figs. 1-7 and related text of the present invention support a structure comprising the IC package 201 and the interposer 202 are coupled to the external device (i.e., substrate or PCB) via the connection devices 103 when the connection devices are compressed by a force application device 104, and Fig. 8 of present invention supports the process steps of attaching the IC package 201 on the external device (i.e., substrate or PCB) via the connection devices 103 when the connection devices are compressed by a force application device 104. However, none of the figures or specification support that after forming “A structure” of having the IC package “coupled” to the external device, “the IC package [201] and the interposer [202] are disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices [103] be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load” as claimed.
● Independent claim 15 (and dependent claims 9-10 and 13-14 dependent therefrom), lines 1-13, the combination of the limitations:
1) “A structure, comprising: … a plurality of connection devices with elasticity, configured to be attached to the IC package; and a force application device, configured to apply a force on the IC package, to compress the connection devices to have the IC package be electrically coupled to a printed circuit board via the connection devices” and
2) “wherein the IC package is disconnected from the printed circuit board when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load”
is not supported by the original disclosure.
Specifically, Figs. 1-7 and related text of the present invention support a structure comprising the IC package 101 is coupled to the external device (i.e., substrate or PCB) via the connection devices 103 when the connection devices are compressed by a force application device 104, and Fig. 8 of present invention supports the process steps of attaching the IC package 101 on the external device (i.e., substrate or PCB) via the connection devices 103 when the connection devices are compressed by a force application device 104. However, none of the figures or specification support that after forming “A structure” of having the IC package “coupled” to the external device, “the IC package [101] is disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices [103] be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load” as claimed.
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, 3-4, 6-10, 13-16 and 18-19 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.
● Independent claim 1 (and dependent claims 3-4 and 6-7 dependent therefrom) is unclear because on one hand, it claims “A structure” comprising a connection between the IC package and the external device (claim 1, lines 1-7), on the other hand, it claims disconnection “disconnected” between the IC package and the external device (claim 1, lines 7-10). In the other words, it is not clear that whether claim 1 claims the connection between the IC package and the external device or the disconnection between the IC package and the external device. It is noted that a single claim that claims both “A structure” and a method of “disconnected” the structure is indefinite (see M.P.E.P. 2173.05(p)II.
● Independent claim 1 (and dependent claims 3-4 and 6-7 dependent therefrom), lines 7-9, the limitations “wherein the IC package is disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression” is unclear. It is not clear that if the IC package already be “coupled” to the external device via the connection devices when a force is applied to the IC package (as previously claimed in claim 1, lines 3-6) then how can the IC package be “disconnected” from the external device by just removing the force applied to the IC package and the connection devices?
● Independent claim 8 (and dependent claims 9-10 and 13-14 dependent therefrom) is unclear because on one hand, it claims “A structure” comprising a connection between the IC package and the external device (claim 8, lines 1-11), on the other hand, it claims disconnection “disconnected” between the IC package and the external device (claim 8, lines 12-15). In the other words, it is not clear that whether claim 8 claims the connection between the IC package and the external device or the disconnection between the IC package and the external device. It is noted that a single claim that claims both “A structure” and a method of “disconnected” the structure is indefinite (see M.P.E.P. 2173.05(p)II.
● Independent claim 8 (and dependent claims 9-10 and 13-14 dependent therefrom), lines 12-14, the limitations “wherein the IC package and the interposer are disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression” is unclear. It is not clear that if the IC package and interposer already be “coupled” to the external device via the connection devices when a force is applied to the IC package (as previously claimed in claim 8) then how can the IC package and the interposer be “disconnected” from the external device by just removing the force applied to the IC package and the connection devices?
● Independent claim 15 (and dependent claims 16, 18 and 19 dependent therefrom) is unclear because on one hand, it claims “A structure” comprising a connection between the IC package and the external device (claim 15, lines 1-10), on the other hand, it claims disconnection “disconnected” between the IC package and the external device (claim 15, lines 10-13). In the other words, it is not clear that whether claim 15 claims the connection between the IC package and the external device or the disconnection between the IC package and the external device. It is noted that a single claim that claims both “A structure” and a method of “disconnected” the structure is indefinite (see M.P.E.P. 2173.05(p)II.
● Independent claim 15 (and dependent claims 16, 18 and 19 dependent therefrom), lines 11-13, the limitations “the IC package is disconnected from the printed circuit board when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression” is unclear. It is not clear that if the IC package already be “coupled” to the external device via the connection devices when a force is applied to the IC package (as previously claimed in claim 15) then how can the IC package be “disconnected” from the external device by just removing the force applied to the IC package and the connection devices?
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 112(a) rejection
Applicant argues that the original disclosure does support “wherein the IC package is disconnected from the printed circuit board when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load” as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 because as stated in paragraph [0058] :
[0058] Several embodiments of the foregoing interconnection structure provide easy replacement for power supply and/or power supply modules. Unlike the conventional technology, several embodiments of the foregoing interconnection structure adopt connection device with elasticity to electrically couple the IC package to the socket and/or to the printed circuit board, which eliminates the de-soldering and soldering process for IC chip and/or module installation and re-work, thus reducing the risk, time and the cost associated with the soldering and de-soldering process.
This argument is not persuasive because this paragraph just supports the
forming of an “interconnection structure” adopting “connection device with elasticity to electrically couple the IC package to the socket and/or to the printed circuit board, which eliminates the de-soldering and soldering process for IC chip and/or module installation and re-work”, but does not support after forming the “interconnection structure” of having the IC package “coupled” to the external device, “the IC package is disconnected from the external device when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression, so that the voltage regulator no longer provides power to the load” as claimed.
Regarding 112(b) rejection
Applicant argues that the limitations “the IC package is disconnected from the printed circuit board when the force is removed from the IC package to have the connection devices be released from compression” recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 is clear because “When the force is removed, the compression is released. Then the connection device bounces off to its idle state, and the electrical connection between the IC package and the external device is gone, i.e. the IC package is disconnected from the external device” (see page 10 or Applicant’s remark).
This argument is not persuasive because nowhere in the original disclosure supports that after attaching the connection device to the external device via a compression of a force and when the compression is released from the force, the connection device must “bounces off” itself to electrically “disconnected” from the external device. There is no evidence of record to support such Applicant’s assertion.
Regarding 112(b) rejection, Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are also rejected
as indefinite under a single claim that claims both “A structure” and a method of “disconnected” the structure (see M.P.E.P. 2173.05(p)II. However, Applicant has failed to address this rejection.
Conclusion
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 PHAT X CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-1703. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, MARLON FLETCHER can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/PHAT X CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817