CTFR 18/451,852 CTFR 88560 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This OA is in response to the amendment filled on 2/24/2026 that has been entered, wherein claims 1-4, 6-7 and 10-22 are pending, claims 5 and 8-9 are canceled and claims 10-16 are withdrawn. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 repeats “at” in line 2 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The rejection of claims 1-9 and 17-20 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment of 2/24/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, 6, 7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Pan et al. (US 2019/0115269 A1) of record . Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches a patterned stiffener(Fig. 24) comprising: a metallic body(40, ¶0121), wherein the metallic body(40, ¶0121) is a component of a semiconductor device platform(40 10, 12, ¶0121,¶0125 ) for providing rigidity; and the metallic body(40, ¶0121) comprised one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122), wherein the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) are formed in the metallic body(40, ¶0121) to enable the metallic body(40, ¶0121) to obtain a desired configuration(grid frame, Fig. 23, ¶0122) for the semiconductor device platform(40 10, 12, ¶0121,¶0125 ), wherein the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122, wherein 401 is a line, 402 is a line and 404 is a line), or polygons. Regarding the limitation of the limitation of the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) are formed by laser ablation, the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122), or polygons are formed by laser ablation, Pan shows all aspects of the patterned stiffener comprising a one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating patterns of lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122) according to the instant invention. The processing step of the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) are formed by laser ablation and the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122), or polygons are formed by laser ablation, are considered to be process limitations that does not affect the structure of the final device. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.1 Regarding claim 2, Pan teaches the patterned stiffener of claim 1, wherein the metallic body(40, ¶0121) comprises a frame(¶0121) that is positioned along a periphery of an upper surface of the semiconductor device platform(40 10, 12, ¶0121,¶0125 ). Regarding claim 4, Pan teaches the patterned stiffener of claim 2, wherein the frame of the metallic body(40, ¶0121) is provided with a configuration(grid frame, Fig. 23, ¶0122) that is co-planar(¶0121, ¶0123, Fig, 24) with the upper surface of the semiconductor device platform(40 10, 12, ¶0121,¶0125 ). Regarding the limitation of a pre-processing configuration, Pan shows all aspects of the patterned stiffener according to the instant invention. The processing step of a pre-processing configuration is considered to be process limitations that does not affect the structure of the final device. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.1 Regarding claim 6, Pan teaches the patterned stiffener of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor device platform(40 10, 12, ¶0121,¶0125 ) is a package substrate(10, ¶0121). Regarding claim 7, Pan teaches the patterned stiffener of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor device platform(40 10, 12, ¶0121,¶0125 ) is a printed circuit board(12, ¶0125). Regarding claim 17, Pan teaches a semiconductor package(Fig. 24) comprising: a package substrate(10, ¶0121); a metallic body(40, ¶0121), wherein the metallic body(40, ¶0121) is positioned on the package substrate(10, ¶0121) to provide rigidity; the metallic body(40, ¶0121) comprises one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122), wherein the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) are formed in the metallic body(40, ¶0121) to enable the metallic body(40, ¶0121) to obtain a desired configuration(grid frame, Fig. 23, ¶0122) for the package substrate(10, ¶0121); and a semiconductor device(701, 801, ¶0124), wherein the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122, wherein 401 is a line, 402 is a line and 404 is a line), or polygons. Regarding the limitation of the limitation of the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) are formed by laser ablation, the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122), or polygons are formed by laser ablation, Pan shows all aspects of the patterned stiffener comprising a one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating patterns of lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122) according to the instant invention. The processing step of the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) are formed by laser ablation and the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122), or polygons are formed by laser ablation, are considered to be process limitations that does not affect the structure of the final device. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.1 Regarding claim 18, Pan teaches the semiconductor package of claim 17, wherein the metallic body(40, ¶0121) is a stiffener forming a frame(¶0121) around the semiconductor device(701, 801, ¶0124). Regarding claim 19, Pan teaches the semiconductor package of claim 17, wherein the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122), or polygons . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0115269 A1) in view of Jou et al. (US 2022/0356546 A1) both of record . Regarding claim 3, Pan teaches the patterned stiffener of claim 1, but is not relied on to teach the one or patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise microstructure changes in grain boundaries and/or phase changes in the metallic body(40, ¶0121). Pan does teach the one or patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise copper or copper alloys(¶0121). Jou teaches a patterned stiffener(Fig. 11B) wherein the one or patterned sections(1630, ¶0141) comprise microstructure changes(Fig. 2B, ¶0086, ¶0088, ¶0142) in grain boundaries(212, ¶0087, Fig. 2B) and/or phase changes in the metallic body(1630, ¶0141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pan, so that one or patterned sections comprise microstructure changes in grain boundaries and/or phase changes in the metallic body, as taught by Jou, in order to have added material strength and hardness advantages of alloying elements with the nanotwin boundaries which promote strength and hardness with minimal loss to the thermal and electrical conductivity of the material, thus allowing for new component and device designs that take advantage of these improved material properties(¶0063). Regarding claim 20, Pan teaches the semiconductor package of claim 17, but is not relied on to teach the one or patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) provide modulated microstructures comprising changes in grain boundaries and/or phase changes in the metallic body(40, ¶0121). Pan does teach the one or patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise copper or copper alloys(¶0121). Jou teaches a semiconductor package(Fig. 11B) wherein the one or patterned sections(1630, ¶0141) provide microstructure changes(Fig. 2B, ¶0086, ¶0088, ¶0142) comprising changes in grain boundaries(212, ¶0087, Fig. 2B) and/or phase changes in the metallic body(1630, ¶0141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pan, so that one or patterned sections provide modulated microstructures comprising changes in grain boundaries and/or phase changes in the metallic body, as taught by Jou, in order to have added material strength and hardness advantages of alloying elements with the nanotwin boundaries which promote strength and hardness with minimal loss to the thermal and electrical conductivity of the material, thus allowing for new component and device designs that take advantage of these improved material properties(¶0063) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 21-22 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding dependent claim 21, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the patterned stiffener comprises a warpage located at least one of the one or more patterned sections”. Regarding dependent claim 22, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the one or more patterned sections are along a surface of the patterned stiffener” . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office's analysis of Pan and respectfully submits that Pan does not disclose patterned sections with "repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines, or polygons". Based on the Office's citations to 401, 402, 404, and par. [0122] for the one or more patterned sections and FIG. 23, 401, 402, 404, and par. [0122] for the repeating pseudo-random patterns, it is suspected that the Office may have understood the diagonal lines in Pan, FIG. 23, elements 401, 402, 404, and 408 to disclose a pattern that could read on the "patterned sections" of claim 1/9. The examiner respectfully submits that the diagonal lines shown in Pan Fig. 23 are not being relied upon as the claimed pattern. Rather, elements 401, 402 and 404 are interpreted as the patterned sections comprising repeating or pseudo-random lines relied upon in this rejection. These elements are defined in Pan as distinct structural regions, that correspond to the claimed the one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122). Applicants argue further that Pan does not actually disclose making or having a pattern of any kind on the stiffener, whether through ablation, etching, or otherwise. In short, once the diagonal lines of FIG. 23 are understood as hatching, there is no basis to suggest that the patterned areas appear on Pan's stiffener. The examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 does not require the pattern to be formed on the metallic body, claim 1 requires “the one or more patterned sections are formed in the metallic body”. Elements 401, 402 and 404 are interpreted as the patterned sections comprising repeating or pseudo-random lines relied upon in this rejection. Applicant is encouraged to incorporate the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 22 to better make the distinction that the one or more pattern sections are formed in surface of the patterned stiffener. Applicants argue further Applicant also notes that the Office characterized portions of claims 8 and 9 relative to laser ablation as a product-by-process element. As the Office indicated, to the extent that the Office elects to view this as a product-by- process element, the resulting product (e.g., the product that results from the process) must be given patentable weight, and the Office must find a product with all corresponding structural features to support a rejection under @ 102. Otherwise stated, even if the laser ablation is viewed as a product-by-process element, the repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines, or polygons formed by the laser ablation are structural elements that must be found in the art. As explained above, these patterns are not disclosed by Pan, and therefore amended claim 1 should be deemed allowable over the cited art. The examiner respectfully submits that the discloses the structural features of “one or more patterned sections(401, 402, 404, ¶0122) comprise repeating or pseudo-random patterns of circles, lines(Fig. 23, 401, 402, 404, ¶0122, wherein 401 is a line, 402 is a line and 404 is a line), or polygons and the rejection is maintain. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA DYKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-5 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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. /LAURA M DYKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 2 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 3 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 4 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 5 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 6 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 7 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 8 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 9 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 10 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 11 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 12 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/451,852 Page 13 Art Unit: 2892
Prosecution Insights