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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the Non-final rejection on 12/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The formal drawings filed on 10/20/2023 have been approved by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “ RING STRUCTURE SURROUNDING A PACKAGE COMPONENT ”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hirobe (US 2016/0233141).
With respect to Claim 1, Hirobe teaches a first package component 30 and a second package component comprising a substrate 10. The first package component 30 is mounted to the substrate 10. A ring structure 20, 22, 28 (i.e. surrounding the component 30 via groove 24) disposed on the second package component and around the first package component 30. The ring structure 20, 22, 28 has a first foot 28 and a second foot 22 parallel to the first foot 28, wherein a width of the first foot 28 is greater than a width of the second foot 22 (see paragraphs 35-53; Figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B).
With respect to Claim 2, Hirobe teaches the ring structure 20, 22, 28 further has a body connected to the first foot 28 and the second foot 22, and a width of the body is greater than a sum of the width of the first foot and the width of the second foot (see Figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B).
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Lin et al. (US 11,587,887).
With respect to Claim 1, Lin teaches a first package component 200 and a second package component comprising a substrate 100. The first package component 200 is mounted to the substrate 100. A ring structure 500 disposed on the second package component and around the first package component 200. The ring structure 500 has a first foot 530 and a second foot 520 parallel to the first foot 530, wherein a width (i.e. 10nm) of the first foot 530 is greater than a width (i.e. 5 nm) of the second foot (see col. 2 lines 39-67, col. 4 lines 5-67, and col. 5 lines 1-32; Figs. 1D, 1E, , and 3A-3C).
With respect to Claim 2, Lin teaches the ring structure 500 further has a body connected to the first foot 530 and the second foot 520, and a width of the body is greater than a sum of the width of the first foot and the width of the second foot (see Figs. 1D, 1E, , and 3A-3C).
With respect to Claim 5, Lin teaches the first package component 200 is exposed from an opening of the ring structure 500, wherein the opening is located inside the second foot (see Figs. 1D, 1E, , and 3A-3C).
With respect to Claim 6, Lin teaches a thermal-dissipation device 1800 over a top surface of the first package component 200 and a top surface of the ring structure 1500, and the top surface of the first package component 200 is substantially level with the top surface of the ring structure 1500 (see Figs. 10A-10C).
With respect to Claim 7, Lin teaches the thermal-dissipation device 1800 is attached to a thermal interface material 1710 on the top surface of the first package component 200 and an adhesive (i.e. TIM that acts as an adhesive to bond two structures together) on the top surface of the ring structure 1500 (see Figs. 10A-10C).
With respect to Claim 8, Lin teaches a first package component 200 and
a second package component comprising a substrate 100. The first package
component 200 is mounted to the substrate 100. A ring structure 500 disposed on the second package component 200 and around the first package component 100. The ring structure 500 has a first foot 530, a second foot 520, and a body 510 connected to the first foot 530 and the second foot 520, the first foot 530 and the second foot 520 extend toward the substrate 100. A recess 540 is formed between the first foot 530 and the second foot 520 for containing an electronic component 1000. A center axis of the body and a center axis of the electronic component 1000 are spaced for a non-zero distance (see(see col. 2 lines 39-67, col. 4 lines 5-67, and col. 5 lines 1-32; Figs. 1D, 1E, 3A-3C).
With respect to Claim 9, Lin teaches the electronic component 1000 is surrounded by a space formed by the ring structure 500 and the substrate 100 (see Figs. 1D, 1E, 3A-3C).
With respect to Claim 10, Lin teaches the electronic component 1000 is spaced apart from the first foot, the second foot, and the body (see Figs. 1D, 1E, 3A-3C).
With respect to Claim 12, Lin teaches the center axis of the body 510 and the center axis of the electronic component 1000 are perpendicular to a top surface
of the substrate (see Fig. 3C).
With respect to Claim 13, Lin teaches the center axis of the body 510 is parallel to the center axis of the electronic component 1000 (Fig. 3C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe (US 2016/0233141) and Lin et al. (US 11,587,887) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tosaya et al. (US 8,008,133).
With respect to Claims 4 and 14, Hirobe–Lin disclose the claim invention except for the first foot comprises a plurality of first segments, the second foot comprises a plurality of second segments, the electronic component is located between one of the first segments and one of the second segments, and the one of the first segments faces the one of the second segments.
However, Tosaya discloses the first foot comprises a plurality of first segments 210 ( along with left vertical portion of element 195/200). The second foot comprises a plurality of second segments ( i.e. elements 205 and right vertical portion of element 195/200). The electronic component 110a, 110b, 110c, or 110d is located between one of the first segments and one of the second segments and the one of the first segments faces the one of the second segments (see Fig. 12). Thus, Hirobe-Lin and Tosaya have substantially the same environment of a device enclosed in the cavity of a ring structure that is mounted on a substrate. Therefore, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a plurality of first and second foots for the foots of Hirobe-Lin, since the plurality of first and second foots for the first and second foots of Hirobe-Lin, since the plurality of first and second foots would improve the pathways for outgassing as taught by Tosaya.
With respect to Claim 15, Tosaya discloses a gap between the first
segments faces a gap between the second segments, and a straight line passes through the gap between the first segments and the gap between the second segments (see Fig. 12).
With respect to Claim 16, Tosaya discloses the ring structure is
symmetrically arranged about the straight line (see Fig. 12).
With respect to Claim 17, Tosaya discloses the gap between the
first segments is wider than the gap between the second segments (see Fig. 12).
With respect to Claim 18, Tosaya discloses the straight line is
parallel to a top surface of the substrate 15 (see Figs. 11-13).
With respect to Claim 19, Tosaya discloses one of the second
segments is located at a middle of adjacent two of the first segments on one side of the
ring structure (see Fig. 12).
With respect to Claim 20, Hirobe discloses a width of the first foot 28
is greater than a width of the second foot 22. The first foot and the second foot are located on opposite edges of the ring structure (see Figs. 2, 3B, and 8-10)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,859. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the application and patent recite a first package component and a second package component comprising a substrate. The first package component is mounted to the substrate. A ring structure disposed on the second package component and around the first package component. The ring structure has a first foot and a second foot parallel to the first foot, wherein a width of the first foot is greater than a width of the second foot.
13. Claims 8-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,859. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the application and patent recite a first package component and a second package component comprising a substrate. The first package component is mounted to the substrate. A ring structure disposed on the second package component and around the first package component. The ring structure has a first foot, a second foot, and a body connected to the first foot and the second foot, the first foot and the second foot extend toward the substrate. A recess is formed between the first foot and the second foot for containing an electronic component. A center axis of the body and a center axis of the electronic component are spaced for a non-zero distance.
14. Claims 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,859. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the application and patent recite a first package component and a second package component comprising a substrate. The first package component is mounted to the substrate; an electronic component bonded to the substrate. A ring structure disposed on the second package component and around the first package component. The ring structure has a first foot, a second foot, and a body connected to the first foot and the second foot, the first foot and the second foot extend toward the substrate. The first foot comprises a plurality of first segments, the second foot comprises a plurality of second segments, the electronic component is located between one of the first segments and one of the second segments, and the one of the first segments faces the one of the second segments.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 3 and 11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowance subject matter: none of the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of the ring structure has a third foot disposed between the first foot and the second foot. The width of the body is greater than a sum of the width of the first foot, the width of the second foot, and a width of the third foot in claim 3.
The center axis of the electronic component is closer to the first package component than the center axis of the body in claim 11.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited primarily to show the product of the instant invention.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alonzo Chambliss whose telephone number is (571) 272-1927.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Y. Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PMR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PMR only. For more information about the PMR system see hittp://pair-dkect.uspto. gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PMR system contact the Electronic Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
AC/December 24, 2025 /Alonzo Chambliss/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897