DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed September 04/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Examiner acknowledges the amendment of “the” to “substrate” fixes the antecedent basis issue and the objection has been overcome. Examiner notes the amendment from “electronic device” to “electronic component” overcomes the 112b rejection for Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-10). Examiner notes the amendment from “substrate” to “the substrate” overcomes the 112b rejection in claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-10). Examiner thanks the applicant for pointing out the 112b issues in claims 3, 15, and 19 and examiner accordingly withdraws the 112b rejections made for claim 3, 15, and 19 regarding the “lid attach material”, “lid attach material”, and “dam”, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. Examiner kindly reminds applicant that all claims are analyzed under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claim 1:
With regards to the amendments in Claim 1, amending “substrate sidewall” to “molded structure” does not overcome the previous rejection. The term “molded” is a process-based limitation that does not impart a structural limitation to the claimed device. The “molded structure” is interpreted as “structure” without further limitations, and is not found to distinguish over the cited art. Furthermore, terms such as “coupled to”, “covering”, “defined by” are to be interpreted broadly. A potential modification may include: “directly coupled to and only in contact with” for example, if applicant wishes to further clarify the desired structural configurations.
With regards to “Tan teaching away” with respect to the “lid attach material being coupled to the molded structure and the encapsulant” the argument is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that Tan does not disclose a lid attach material being coupled to the molded structure and the encapsulant. Examiner uses Chang to cure this deficiency. While Tan discloses a preferred embodiment of separating the encapsulant from the lid attach material by using the dam, that suggests a design choice or preference. Tan does not disclose that the device is inoperable by allowing encapsulant in the region such that the lid attach material is coupled to the molded structure and the encapsulant. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, as a combination of Tan and Chang was used for this particular deficiency, there does not appear to be evidence that Chang, modifying Tan, would be wholly inoperable. A POSITA would have recognized the dam of Tan as method of regulating/constraining the encapsulant distribution from a particular region and then adapted the encapsulant placement, consistent with the teaching in Chang, to obtain better mechanical fixation and arriving at the invention as claimed. For these purposes, the rejection is maintained.
With regards to the argument that Tan does not “teach a cavity between a bottom side of the lid and a top side of the electronic component” examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Examiner kindly reminds applicant that under broadest reasonable interpretation, a POSITA would recognize the region 180 in Fig. 1C of Tan as a cavity which is spatially located between a bottom side of a lid (Tan; element 170) and a top side of the electronic component,
PNG
media_image1.png
320
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Tan; element 130) as demonstrated in the attached figure.
Under BRI the cavity is between the bottom side of the lid and a top side of the electronic component. Applicant may possibly amend to say “a cavity is in direct contact with only the bottom side of the lid and a top side of the electronic component”, as under BRI the claim, as presented, is met by Tan. Furthermore, it does not appear the argument discusses element 180, which was defined as the cavity in the non-final office action. For the reasons, the arguments are not found compelling and the rejection for this portion is maintained.
Additionally, examiner reminds applicant that Chang was not relied upon to disclose the features, and the “molded structure” is interpreted as “structure” in this device claim. Applicant also argues that “proposed modification of Tan to couple lid attach material to the encapsulant would render Tan inoperable for it’s primary purpose” and examiner does not agree as no evidence of “device inoperability” has been presented. Tan discloses a preferred embodiment where the encapsulant is kept of the lid attach region, but there is no evidence that the device will not function if there is encapsulant in the lid attach region. Chang presented a reason for including encapsulant in the lid attach region and there is no argument presented for why Tan, being modified by Chang, could not be possible. Therefore, the entire rejection of Claim 1 is maintained and claims 2-10 are not allowed on the base of Claim 1.
Claim 2:
With regards to the amendments in Claim 1, amending “substrate sidewall” to “molded structure” does not overcome the previous rejection. The term “molded” is a process-based limitation that does not impart a structural limitation to the claimed device. The “molded structure” is interpreted as “structure” without further limitations, and is not found to distinguish over the cited art. Furthermore, examiner kindly reminds applicant that the words “protruding opposite the substrate” is interpreted under BRI and the claim, as presented, is met using Tan. The rejection for claim 2 is maintained.
Claim 3:
With regards to the amendments in Claim 3, amending “substrate sidewall” to “molded structure” does not overcome the previous rejection. The term “molded” is a process-based limitation that does not impart a structural limitation to the claimed device. The “molded structure” is interpreted as “structure” without further limitations, and is not found to distinguish over the cited art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant has not presented persuasive arguments direct to the proposed combination of Tan, Chang, and Furuyashiki used for this claim limitation. The applicant arguments are not found persuasive and therefore the original rejection is maintained.
Claim 9:
With regards to the argument and amended claim 9, regarding “Tan does not teach the cavity is defined by the bottom side of the lid, the top side of the electronic component, a top side of the encapsulant, and an inner side of the lid attach material.”
PNG
media_image2.png
320
789
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees that Tan does not disclose the cavity being defined by the bottom side of the lid, the top side of the electronic component, a top side of the encapsulant, and an inner side of the lid attach material (see attached figure). Examiner kindly reminds applicant that claims are interpreted under BRI.
Applicant may wish to further clarify the structural positioning of the cavity (a top side of the cavity is directly in contact with the bottom side of the lid, the left side of the cavity is directly in contact with…). Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the original rejection is maintained.
Claim 11:
With regards to the amendments in Claim 11, amending “substrate sidewall” to “molded structure” does not overcome the previous rejection. The term “molded” is a process-based limitation that does not impart a structural limitation to the claimed device. The “molded structure” is interpreted as “structure” without further limitations, and is not found to distinguish over the cited art. Therefore, the applicant arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection for amended claim 11 is maintained (see the rejections of Claims 1 and 2). Therefore, the entire rejection of Claim 11 is maintained and claims 12-16 are not allowed on the base of Claim 11.
Claim 17:
With regards to the amendments in Claim 17, amending “substrate sidewall” to “molded structure” does impart a structural limitation as this is a process claim. Applicants’ arguments regarding the Tan reference are persuasive to the extent that Tan alone does not teach the “molded” limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made: Tan (US 20190043797 A1) in view of Berry (US 7507603 B1) further in view of Chang (US 20210096310 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 13-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20190043797 A1) in view of Chang (US 20210096310 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 1, Tan discloses:
an electronic device (Tan, semiconductor package; Fig. 1c, element 100) comprising:
a substrate (Tan, bottom substrate layer; Fig. 1c, element 122);
a molded structure comprising a sidewall (Tan, side part of package substrate; Fig. 1c, element 120, element 126, can be considered the molded structure and the sidewall) disposed over a side of the substrate;
an electronic component (Tan, semiconductor die; Fig. 1c, element 130) disposed over the side of the substrate and adjacent the sidewall of the molded structure;
an internal interconnect (Tan. wire bonds; Fig. 2, element 135) coupled to the electronic component and the substrate;
an encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 1c, element 185) covering the internal interconnect between the electronic component and the molded structure;
a lid attach material (Tan, adhesive layer; Fig. 3, element 165) coupled to the molded structure (Tan, package substrate; Fig. 3, element 320) and the encapsulant;
wherein a cavity (Tan, cavity; Fig. 1C, element 180) is defined between a bottom side of the lid (Tan, lid; Fig. 1C, element 170) and a top side of the electronic component
Tan is silent regarding:
and a lid coupled to the encapsulant and the molded structure by the lid attach material;
Chang discloses:
and a lid (Chang, protection layer; Fig. 1B, element 125) coupled to the encapsulant (Chang, encapsulation; Fig. 1B, element 120) and the molded structure (Chang, sidewall, Fig. 1B, element PDs′) by the lid attach material (Chang, optical interface layer; Fig. 1B, element 220, ¶ [0028]);
Tan discloses a lid, encapsulation, a molded structure and a lid attach material used for semiconductor packaging. Tan does not disclose the lid coupled to the encapsulant by the lid attach material. Chang discloses a lid coupled to the encapsulant and the molded structure by the lid attach material. Both Tan and Chang disclose semiconductor package assembly and are therefore analogous art. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the lid attach material of Tan, in accordance with the teachings of Chang, so that it couples the lid to the encapsulant and the molded structure for better mechanical fixation (Chang, ¶ [0028]).
Re: Claim 2, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the molded structure (Tan, side part of package substrate; Fig. 2, element 120) comprises a dam (Tan, dam; Fig. 2, element 160) protruding from a ledge (Tan, substrate layer; Fig. 1c, element 124a) of the molded structure opposite the side of the substrate (Tan, bottom substrate layer; Fig. 1c, element 122).
Re: Claim 4, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the molded structure (Tan, side part of package substrate; Fig. 1c, element 120) comprises a mold compound having a filler material (Tan discloses that the package substrate may include a plurality of dielectric substrate layers that may be laminated or built-up, ¶ [0021], dielectric substrate layers that are laminated or built up can be made from a molded compound having a filler material), and wherein the encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 1c, element 185) is a filler-free material (Tan, epoxy resin in liquid form, ¶ [0069]).
Re: Claim 5, Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 4 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 1c, element 185) is unmolded (Tan discloses that the liquid encapsulant includes epoxy resin in liquid form dispensed into the recess region and cured (Tan, ¶ [0069]).
Re: Claim 6, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the internal interconnect (Tan, wire bonds; Fig. 2, element 135) comprises wire coupled to the top side of the electronic component (Tan, semiconductor die; Fig. 2, element 130) and coupled to the substrate (Tan, bottom layer of package substrate; Fig. 1C, element 122).
Re: Claim 7, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Tan is silent regarding:
wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board.
Chang discloses:
wherein the substrate (Chang, second package component; Fig. 1C, element 300) comprises a printed circuit board (Chang, ¶ [0043]).
Tan discloses a substrate/package substrate. Tan does not disclose that the substrate comprises a circuit board. Chang discloses a substrate which may include a package substrate, a printed circuit board, or other circuit carrier that is capable of carrying integrated circuits. Both Tan and Chang disclose semiconductor package assembly and are therefore analogous art. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the printed circuit board of Chang within the package substrate of Tan to enable further electrical connections (Chang, ¶ [0043]).
Re: Claim 8, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the lid (Tan, lid; Fig. 1C, element 170) is transmissive (Tan, the package lid may be formed from any suitable materials including transparent material (e.g., glass), ¶ [0036]).
Re: Claim 9, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the cavity (Tan, cavity; Fig. 1C, element 180) is defined by the bottom side of the lid (Tan, lid; Fig. 1c, element 170), the top side of the electronic component (Tan, semiconductor die; Fig. 1c, element 130), a top side of the encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 1c, element 185), and an inner side of the lid attach material (Tan, adhesive layer; Fig. 1c, element 165).
Re: Claim 10, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the cavity (Tan, cavity; Fig. 3, element 380) is isolated from the molded structure (Tan, package substrate; Fig. 3, element 320).
Re: Independent Claim 11, Tan discloses:
An electronic device (Tan, semiconductor package; Fig. 1c, element 100) comprising:
a substrate (Tan, bottom substrate layer; Fig. 1c, element 122);
a molded structure comprising a sidewall (Tan, side part of package substrate; Fig. 1c, element 126, can be considered the molded structure and the sidewall) over a side of the substrate, the molded structure comprising a dam (Tan, dam; Fig. 2, element 160) protruding opposite the substrate (Tan, top planar surface of the bottom substrate layer; Fig. 2, element 122a);
an electronic component (Tan, semiconductor die; Fig. 1c, element 130) over the side of the substrate and adjacent the molded structure;
an encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 1c, element 185) between the electronic component and the molded structure;
a lid attach material (Tan, adhesive layer; Fig. 3, element 165) over the molded structure (Tan, package substrate; element 320) and the encapsulant;
wherein a cavity (Tan, cavity; Fig. 1C, element 180) is defined between the lid (Tan, lid; Fig. 1C, element 170) and the electronic component.
Tan is silent regarding:
and a lid coupled to the encapsulant and the molded structure by the lid attach material;
Chang discloses:
and a lid (Chang, protection layer; Fig. 1B. element 125) coupled to the encapsulant (Chang, encapsulation; Fig. 1B, element 120) and the molded structure (Chang, sidewall, Fig. 1B, element PDs′) by the lid attach material (Chang, optical interface layer; Fig. 1B, element 220, ¶ [0028]).
Tan discloses a lid, encapsulation, a molded structure and a lid attach material used for semiconductor packaging. Tan does not disclose the lid coupled to the encapsulant by the lid attach material. Chang discloses a lid coupled to the encapsulant and the molded structure by the lid attach material. Both Tan and Chang disclose semiconductor package assembly and are therefore analogous art. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the lid attach material of Tan, as disclosed by Chang, so that it couples the lid to the encapsulant and the molded structure for better mechanical fixation (Chang,¶ [0028]).
Re: Claim 13, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein the cavity (Tan, cavity; Fig. 3, element 380) is isolated from the molded structure (Tan, package substrate; Fig. 3, element 320).
Re: Claim 14, Tan and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
further comprising a wire (Tan, wire bonds; Fig. 2 element 135) coupling the electronic component (Tan, semiconductor die; Fig. 2, element 130) to the substrate (Tan, bottom layer of package substrate; Fig. 1C, element 122), wherein the encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 2, element 185) covers the wire between the electronic component and the molded structure (Tan, side of package substrate; Fig. 2, element 120).
Re: Claim 15, Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 on which this claim depends. Tan further discloses:
wherein an interface (Tan, region between the lid and adhesive layer; Fig. 1c, elements 170 and 165, respectively) between the lid attach material (Tan, adhesive layer; Fig. 1c, element 165) and the encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 2, element 185) extends over the wire.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20190043797 A1) in view of Chang (US 20210096310 A1), further in view of Furuyashiki (US 20100001174 A1).
Re: Claim 3, Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends. Tan is silent regarding:
wherein the lid attach material contacts a top side of the dam, a lateral side of the dam, the ledge of the molded structure, and a top side of the encapsulant.
Furuyashiki discloses:
wherein the lid attach material (Furuyashiki, adhesive, Fig. 2b, element 85), contacts a top side of the dam (Furuyashiki, dam; Fig. 2b, element 80), a lateral side of the dam (Furuyashiki, dam; Fig. 2b, element 80), the ledge of the molded structure (Furuyashiki, first ribs surface; Fig. 2b, element 70), and a top side of the encapsulant (Furuyashiki, encapsulating resin; Fig. 20d, element 96).
Tan discloses a lid attach material, a dam, a molded structure and an encapsulant. Tan does not disclose the lid attach material contacting a top side of the encapsulant. Furuyashiki discloses that the fillet of the lid attach material extends from the dam to a lateral wall of the lid to more firmly fix the lid to the molded structure. Tan and Furuyashiki disclose dams, lid attach material, encapsulants, and substrates for semiconductor packaging, hence all are analogous art. A POSITA before the effective filing date would be motivated to place the lid attach material as taught by Furuyashiki to the dam taught by Tan, for a firmer connection of the lid even with a smaller amount of adhesive (Furuyashiki, ¶ [0094]).
Re: Claim 12, Tan and Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Tan and Chang are silent regarding:
wherein the lid attach material contacts a top side of the dam, a vertical side of the dam, a top side of the molded structure, and a side of the encapsulant.
wherein the lid attach material (Furuyashiki, adhesive, Fig. 2b, element 85), contacts a top side of the dam (Furuyashiki, dam; Fig. 2b, element 80), a vertical side of the dam (Furuyashiki, dam; Fig. 2b, element 80), a top side of the molded structure (Furuyashiki, first ribs surface; Fig. 2b, element 70), and a side of the encapsulant (Furuyashiki, encapsulating resin; Fig. 20d, element 96).
Tan and Chang disclose a lid attach material, a dam, a molded structure and an encapsulant. Tan and Chang do not disclose the lid attach material contacting a top side of the encapsulant. Furuyashiki discloses that the fillet of the lid attach material extends from the dam to a lateral wall of the lid to more firmly fix the lid to the molded structure. Tan, Chang, and Furuyashiki disclose dams, lid attach material, encapsulants, and substrates for semiconductor packaging, hence all are analogous art. A POSITA before the effective filing date would be motivated to place the lid attach material as taught by Furuyashiki to the dam taught by Tan and Chang, for a firmer connection of the lid even with a smaller amount of adhesive (Furuyashiki, ¶ [0094 - 0095]).
Re: Claim 16, Tan and Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Tan and Chang are silent regarding:
wherein a fillet of the lid attach material extends from the dam to a lateral sidewall of the lid.
Furuyashiki discloses:
wherein a fillet of the lid attach material (Furuyashiki, a portion of the adhesive; Fig. 2b, element 85) extends from the dam (Furuyashiki, dam; Fig. 2b, element 80) to a lateral sidewall of the lid (Furuyashiki, lid; Fig. 2b, element 90).
Tan and Chang disclose dams and lid attach materials. Tan and Chang do not disclose a portion of the lid attach material extending from the dam to a lateral sidewall of the lid. Tan, Chang, and Furuyashiki disclose dams and lid attach materials for use in semiconductor packaging, and therefore are analogous art. Furuyashiki discloses that the fillet of the lid attach material extends from the dam to a lateral wall of the lid to more firmly fix the lid to the molded structure. A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of lid attach materials to the dam of Tan for a firmer connection of the lid even with a smaller amount of adhesive (Furuyashiki, ¶ [0094 – 0095]).
Claim(s) 17-18 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20190043797 A1), in view of Berry (US 7507603 B1), further in view of Chang (US 20210096310 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 17, Tan discloses:
providing a substrate (Tan, bottom substrate layer; Fig. 1c, element 122);
providing a structure comprising a sidewall (Tan, side part of package substrate; Fig. 1c, element 120, element 126, can be considered the molded structure and the sidewall) disposed over a side of the substrate;
Tan does not explicitly disclose:
Providing a molded structure
Berry discloses:
providing a molded structure (Berry, package bodies; Fig. 1. element 26, Col. 5, lines 40-51).
Tan discloses a structure, but Tan does not explicitly disclose this structure is molded. Tan additionally discloses the structure can be built up. Berry discloses providing a molded structure for use in a semiconductor package. Tan and Berry both disclose the use of encapsulants, internal interconnects, cavities, and packages for use within semiconductor devices and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious a POSITA before the effective filing date to make the structure of Tan a molded structure, as disclosed by Berry, as Berry describes molding a structure as one of the many methods that can be applied in forming a package body/structure on top of another with reasonable success of for forming a semiconductor device.
Tan, as modified by Berry, further discloses:
providing an electronic component (Tan, semiconductor die; Fig. 1c, element 130) disposed over the side of the substrate and adjacent the sidewall of the molded structure;
providing an encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 1c, element 185) between the molded structure and the electronic component;
providing a lid attach material (Tan, adhesive layer; Fig. 3, element 165) over the molded structure (Tan, package substrate; Fig. 3, element 320) and the encapsulant;
Tan, as modified by Berry, is silent regarding:
providing a lid coupled to the encapsulant and the molded structure by the lid attach material.
Chang discloses:
providing and a lid (Chang, protection layer; Fig. 1B, element 125) coupled to the encapsulant (Chang, encapsulation; Fig. 1B, element 120) and the molded structure (Chang, sidewall, Fig. 1B, element PDs′) by the lid attach material (Chang, optical interface layer; Fig. 1B, element 220, ¶ [0028]);
Tan, as modified by Berry, discloses a lid, encapsulation, a molded structure and a lid attach material used for semiconductor packaging. Tan does not disclose providing the lid coupled to the encapsulant by the lid attach material. Chang discloses a lid coupled to the encapsulant and the molded structure by the lid attach material. Tan, Berry, and Chang disclose semiconductor package assembly and are therefore analogous art. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the lid attach material of Tan, as modified by Berry, in accordance with the teachings of Chang, so that it couples the lid to the encapsulant and the molded structure for better mechanical fixation (Chang, ¶ [0028]).
Re: Claim 18, Tan, Berry and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends. Tan, as modified by Berry, and Chang further discloses:
further comprising providing an internal interconnect (Tan, wire bonds; Fig. 2 element 135) between the molded structure (Tan, side part of substrate package; Fig. 1c, element 120) and the electronic component (Tan, semiconductor die; Fig. 1c, element 130).
Re: Claim 20, Tan, Berry and Chang disclose all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends. Tan, as modified by Berry, and Chang further discloses:
wherein the molded structure (Tan, side part of package substrate; Fig. 1c, element 120) is a molded compound having a filler material (Tan discloses that the package substrate may include a plurality of dielectric substrate layers that may be laminated or built-up, ¶ [0021], dielectric substrate layers that are laminated or built up can be made from a molded compound having a filler material), and wherein the encapsulant (Tan, encapsulant; Fig. 1c, element 185) is a filler-free material (Tan, epoxy resin in liquid form, ¶ [0069]).
Claim 19 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20190043797 A1), in view of Berry (US 7507603 B1), further in view of Chang (US 20210096310 A1) and in further view of Furuyashiki (US 20100001174 A1).
Re: Claim 19, Tan, Berry and Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends. Tan, as modified by Berry, and Chang further discloses:
the molded structure (Tan, side part of package substrate; Fig. 1c, element 120)
Tan, as modified by Berry, and Chang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the molded structure comprises a dam that contacts the lid attach material, wherein a fillet of the lid attach material extends from the dam to a lateral wall of the lid.
Furuyashiki discloses:
wherein the structure (Furuyashiki, first ribs surface; Fig. 2b, element 70) comprises a dam (Furuyashiki, dam; Fig. 2b, element 80) that contacts the lid attach material (Furuyashiki, adhesive, Fig. 2b, element 85), wherein a fillet (Furuyashiki, a portion of the adhesive, Fig. 2b, element 85, ¶ [0094]) of the lid attach material extends from the dam to a lateral wall of the lid (Furuyashiki, lid; Fig. 2b, element 90).
Tan, as modified by Berry and Chang discloses a molded structure, dams and lid attach materials. Tan, as modified by Berry and Chang, does not disclose a portion of the lid attach material extending from the dam to a lateral wall of the lid. Tan, Berry Chang, and Furuyashiki materials for use in semiconductor packaging, and therefore are analogous art. Furuyashiki discloses that the fillet of the lid attach material extends from the dam to a lateral wall of the lid to more firmly fix the lid to the structure. A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of lid attach materials to the dam of Tan, modified by Berry and Chang, for a firmer connection of the lid even with a smaller amount of adhesive (Furuyashiki, ¶ [0094 – 0095]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY whose telephone number is (571)272-7679. The examiner can normally be reached usually Monday - Thursday, 6:45 AM - 4:45 PM (EST).
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.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights