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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After further search and consideration of Kim et al. 20200388549, it is determined that fig. 15 of Kim discloses claims 1-11. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. 20200388549.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 15 of Kim discloses a chip-on-film (substrate 210 may include a substrate base made of at least one of phenol resin, epoxy resin, and polyimide – which is a film) package, comprising:
a lower base film 210 including a first surface (bottom surface) and a second surface (top surface), which are opposite to each other;
an upper base film 287 including a third surface (bottom surface) and a fourth surface (top surface), which are opposite to each other, and is disposed on the lower base film;
a first semiconductor chip 230 (left) mounted on the second surface of the lower base film and spaced apart from the third surface (bottom surface of 287);
a second semiconductor chip 230 (right) mounted on the third surface of the upper base film and spaced apart from the second surface (top surface of 210); and
an interposer film 250 interposed between the lower and upper base films, wherein the second and third surfaces face each other.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 15 of Kim discloses wherein the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip do not overlap with each other in a vertical direction with respect to the second surface of the lower base film.
Regarding claim 3, fig. 15 of Kim discloses wherein at least part of the first semiconductor chip overlaps with the second semiconductor chip in a horizontal direction, which intersects the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 4, it is necessary the case the fig. 13 of Kim discloses wherein a distance, in a horizontal direction, between the first semiconductor chip and the second semiconductor chip is about 6 mm or less (such as zero because counting distance between with value of 0 and increment thereafter).
Regarding claim 6, fig. 15 of Kim discloses further comprising: lower conductive lines (lines of 215s) disposed on the second surface of the lower base film; and upper conductive lines (253/263 heat conductive lines) disposed on the third surface of the upper base film.
Regarding claim 7, fig. 15 of Kim discloses further comprising: to a lower protective member (underfill below 220) covering at least portions of the lower conductive line 215s; and an upper protective member 285 covering at least portions of the upper conductive lines.
Regarding claim 8, fig. 15 of Kim discloses wherein the interposer film includes a top surface and a bottom surface, which are opposite to each other, and further includes first interposer conductive lines (top pad portion on top of 253s) and second interposer conductive lines (bottom pad portion on bottom of 253s),
wherein the first interposer conductive lines are disposed on the top surface of the interposer film and are connected to the upper conductive lines, and
wherein the second interposer conductive lines are disposed on the bottom surface of the interposer film and are connected to the lower conductive lines.
Regarding claim 9, fig. 15 of Kim disclose further comprising: interposer vias (hole around 253) penetrating the interposer film and connecting the first interposer conductive lines to the second interposer conductive lines.
Regarding claim 11, fig. 15 of Kim disclose wherein a length of the upper base film 287 is different (term of degree) from a length of the lower base film 210.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Kim discloses claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a thickness, in a vertical direction with respect to the second surface of the lower base film, of the interposer film is about 30 μm to about 40 μm; wherein a width of the interposer film is about 35 mm to about 156 mm.
However, although Kim is silent about the claimed range, it should be noted that a range of value inherently exist.
Therefore, the prior art of Kim provides foundation for experimental optimization and suggests a progress of changes in size/proportion in order to meet the device dimension.
Therefore, while the structure of Kim does not quantitatively state a ratio, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious a form a package of Kim wherein said range of the of the interposer film is about 30 μm to about 40 μm; wherein a width of the interposer film is about 35 mm to about 156 mm in order to meet the device dimension.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571 )272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893