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
Claims 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0108440 A1; hereinafter Meyer) in view of Tseng et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0130045 A1; hereinafter Tseng).
With respect to claim 1, Meyer discloses a wafer chip scale package (WCSP), comprising: first [101] and second dies [101] in differing voltage domains (see Figure 7G; ¶[0017]; differing types of chips i.e., requiring different voltages); an isolation material [102] between the first and second dies and contacting multiple surfaces of each of the first and second dies (See Figure 7G); a first resin material [103] (see ¶[0021-0022]) contacting multiple surfaces of the isolation material, the isolation material between the resin material and the first and second dies; first and second conductive structures [108] coupled to the first and second dies, respectively (see Figure 6); and a passivation material [120] contacting the first and second dies and the first and second conductive structures (see Figure 7G).
Meyer fails to disclose a fiberglass material contacting a surface of the resin material; or a second resin material contacting a surface of the fiberglass material. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng teaches a fiberglass material [180] contacting a surface of the resin material [150] (see ¶[0023]); a second resin material [160] contacting a surface of the fiberglass material (see ¶[0030]). Implementation of additional layers overlying the package structure of Meyer, as taught by Tseng allows for increased rigidity and heat management (See Tseng ¶[0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Meyer and Tseng discloses wherein a portion of the isolation material between the first and second dies has a thickness ranging from 2 microns to 50 microns (See Meyer ¶[0026]).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Meyer and Tseng discloses wherein the first resin material has a thickness ranging from 10 microns to 200 microns (see Meyer ¶[0026]), the second resin material has a thickness ranging from 10 microns to 150 microns (see Tseng ¶[0019]), but fails to explicitly disclose the fiberglass material has a thickness ranging from 10 microns to 100 microns, however it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the thickness of the fiberglass material can be optimized to provide increased rigidity and heat management (See Tseng ¶[0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Tseng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneda (JP 2021-132087 A)
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Meyer and Tseng fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first and second resin materials and the fiberglass material are asymmetric pre-preg (APP) materials. In the same field of endeavor, Kaneda teaches the utilization of an asymmetric pre-preg within a package structure (See Figures 4) Implementation of an asymmetric pre-preg layer within the resin materials of the combination of Meyer and Tseng would allow for warpage control within the encapsulation of the package (see Kaneda ¶[0012-0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Tseng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0040662 A1; hereinafter Wang).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Meyer and Tseng fails to disclose wherein the isolation material comprises parylene.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang utilizes parylene for isolation along surface layers (see ¶[0086]). Implementation of parylene as taught by Wang introduces additional beneficial properties to the device of Meyer and Tseng such as hydrophobicity, chemical resistivity, and barrier properties for inorganic and organic media, strong acids, caustic solutions, gases and water vapor (See Wang ¶[0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Kaneda.
With respect to claim 6, Meyer discloses a wafer chip scale package (WCSP), comprising: a first die [101] having a first top surface, a first bottom surface opposing the first top surface, and multiple first lateral surfaces; a second die [101] having a second top surface, a second bottom surface opposing the second top surface, and multiple second lateral surfaces, the first and second dies in differing voltage domains (see Figure 7G; ¶[0017]; differing types of chips i.e., requiring different voltages); an isolation material [102] contacting the first and second bottom surfaces, the multiple first lateral surfaces, and the multiple second lateral surfaces (See Figure 4), a portion of the isolation material between the first and second dies having a width ranging from 2 microns to 50 microns (See ¶[0026]); but fails to disclose an asymmetric pre-preg (APP) material contacting the isolation material and having a tensile modulus ranging from 1 gigapascals (GPa) to 30 GPa. In the same field of endeavor, Kaneda teaches the utilization of an asymmetric pre-preg [101/102] within a package structure (See Figures 4; ¶[0012-0013]) Implementation of an asymmetric pre-preg layer alongside the isolation material of the Meyer would allow for warpage control within the encapsulation of the package (see Kaneda ¶[0012-0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention (see Kaneda ¶[0062])
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Meyer and Kaneda discloses wherein the APP material comprises a fiberglass-based asymmetric pre-preg (APP) material (see Kaneda ¶[0017-0018]) and has a thickness ranging from 10 microns to 100 microns (See Kaneda ¶[0020]).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Meyer and Kaneda a first resin-based APP material [102] contacting the APP material and having a thickness ranging from 10 microns to 200 microns; and a second resin-based APP material [103] contacting the APP material and having a thickness ranging from 10 microns to 150 microns (see Kaneda ¶[0012] and Figure 2; indirect contact via [101] and resin materials impregnate core layer [101]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Kaneda as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Meyer and Kaneda discloses wherein the isolation material comprises parylene.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang utilizes parylene for isolation along surface layers (see ¶[0086]). Implementation of parylene as taught by Wang introduces additional beneficial properties to the device of Meyer such as hydrophobicity, chemical resistivity, and barrier properties for inorganic and organic media, strong acids, caustic solutions, gases and water vapor (See Wang ¶[0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM PST.
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, STEVEN LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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.
/JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights