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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
Claim 18, line 2, the limitation “to the planar surface” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear which element is the planar surface.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuentes [US 8,982,577].
With respect to claim 1, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a substrate (102, col. 2, lines 1-5) comprising a planar surface;
a die (130, col. 3, lines 30-40) attached to the planar surface of the substrate with an interposed die attach material (138, col. 3, lines 30-40; 452, col. 7, lines 27-32); and
a solder mask (112, col. 7, lines 23-26) interposed between the die attach material and the planar surface, wherein the solder mask comprises a recessed portion (126, col. 3, lines 5-14; 804, col. 7, lines 27-32) extending beneath a periphery of the die, the recessed portion filled with a molding underfill (452, col. 7, lines 27-32).
With respect to claim 2, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the solder mask comprises a first layer (112, col. 7, lines 23-26) applied to the planar surface and a second layer (112, col. 7, lines 23-26) applied on the first layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the recessed portion (126, col. 3, lines 5-14; 804, col. 7, lines 27-32) comprises a depth equal to a thickness of the second layer.
With respect to claim 4, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the recessed portion (126, col. 3, lines 5-14; 804, col. 7, lines 27-32) extends in a direction parallel to the planar surface and comprises a width greater than a bleed out distance of the die attach material.
With respect to claim 5, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the width ensures the recessed portion (126, col. 3, lines 5-14; 804, col. 7, lines 27-32) is formed in the solder mask at least a minimum distance from a bond finger (116, col. 4, lines 14-35) configured to bond with a wired (144, col. 4, lines 14-35) connection to the die.
With respect to claim 6, Fuentes (fig. 11) discloses wherein the periphery of the die (130, col. 3, lines 30-40) bisects the recessed portion (804).
With respect to claim 7, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the die attach material (138, col. 3, lines 30-40) comprises epoxy.
With respect to claim 8, Fuentes (fig. 2) discloses wherein the molding underfill (148, col. 4, lines 36-44) filling the recessed portion is a same type of molding underfill used to encapsulate the die.
With respect to claim 9, Fuentes (fig. 2) discloses wherein the apparatus is a Ball Grid Array (BGA) (450, col. 7, lines 23-26).
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 10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuentes [US 8,982,577] in view of Gong et al [US 2016/0172309].
Claim 10, Fuentes does not mention wherein the BGA is a Molded Array Process BGA. However, the process limitation in claim 10 (Molded Array Process) do not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, a “product by process” limitation is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, in re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 and 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90; and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; all of which made clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
With respect to claim 16, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a substrate (102, col. 2, lines 1-5) comprising a first surface opposing a second surface;
a die (130, col. 3, lines 30-40) attached to the first surface of the substrate with an interposed die attach material (138, col. 3, lines 30-40; 452, col. 7, lines 27-32); and
a solder mask (112, col. 7, lines 23-26) interposed between the die attach material and the planar surface, wherein the solder mask comprises a recessed portion (126, col. 3, lines 5-14; 804, col. 7, lines 27-32) extending beneath a periphery of the die, the recessed portion filled with a molding underfill (452, col. 7, lines 27-32).
used to encapsulate the die.
Fuentes does not mention the second surface comprises a plurality of solder balls arranged in a ball grid array. However, Gong et al (fig. 6) disclose the substrate panel (14, pp [0028]) comprises the plurality of solder balls (42, 42a, pp [0038]) arranged in a ball grid array on the second surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have the plurality of solder balls as taught by Gong et al into the device of Fuentes in order to provide the purpose of connecting to an external device.
With respect to claim 17, Fuentes (fig. 11) discloses wherein the periphery of the die (130, col. 3, lines 30-40) bisects the recessed portion (804).
With respect to claim 18, as best under stood, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the recessed portion (126, col. 3, lines 5-14; 804, col. 7, lines 27-32) comprises a width greater than a bleed out distance of the die attach material.
With respect to claim 19, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the width ensures the recessed portion (126, col. 3, lines 5-14; 804, col. 7, lines 27-32) is formed in the solder mask at least a minimum distance from a bond finger (116, col. 4, lines 14-35) configured to bond with a wired (144, col. 4, lines 14-35) connection to the die.
With respect to claim 20, Fuentes (figs. 2, 11) discloses wherein the solder mask comprises a first layer (112, col. 7, lines 23-26) applied to the first surface and a second layer (112, col. 7, lines 23-26) applied on the first layer, wherein the recessed portion comprises a depth equal to a thickness of the second layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
605
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m-10:00p.m.
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, Drew Richards can be reached at 571-271-1736. 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.
/HOAI V PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights