DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 8, “between the pad and the pin” at the end of claims 1 and 8 should be changed to “between the electrically-conductive pad and the electrically-conductive pin”.
Regarding claim 15, “the pad” in line 7 and “reflowed solder” in line 8 should be changed to “the electrically-conductive pad” and “a reflowed solder”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 9 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.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation "the reflowed solder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Standing (US 2005/0093164 A1).
Regarding claim 1, referring to Figs. 3-5 and 7, Standing teaches an information handling resource comprising: a circuit board (a first circuit board 20) comprising an electrically-conductive pad (conductive pads 21 of 20) (paragraphs 50-51); a circuit package (a second circuit board 22) comprising an electrically-conductive pin (conductive pads 21 of 22) (paragraphs 50-51); and a preformed solder pellet comprising at least one bead (a solder paste prior to a soldering/reflowing process and comprising spherically shaped filler particles 16), the preformed solder pellet configured to electrically couple the electrically-conductive pad to the electrically-conductive pin upon reflow (the solder paste after the soldering/reflowing process electrically coupling 21 of 20 and 21 of 22) and the at least one bead configured to provide mechanical standoff between the pad and the pin (16 retaining the shape of the solder paste after the soldering/reflowing process) (paragraphs 34-49).
Regarding claim 8, referring to Figs. 3-5 and 7, Standing teaches an information handling system comprising a processor (a semiconductor die 24) (paragraph 50); an information handling resource (a part of a semiconductor package shown in Fig. 7) comprising: a circuit board (a first circuit board 20) comprising an electrically-conductive pad (conductive pads 21 of 20) (paragraphs 50-51); a circuit package (a second circuit board 22) comprising an electrically-conductive pin (conductive pads 21 of 22) (paragraphs 50-51); and a preformed solder pellet comprising at least one bead (a solder paste prior to a soldering/reflowing process and comprising spherically shaped filler particles 16), the preformed solder pellet configured to electrically couple the electrically-conductive pad to the electrically-conductive pin upon reflow (the solder paste after the soldering/reflowing process electrically coupling 21 of 20 and 21 of 22) and the at least one bead configured to provide mechanical standoff between the pad and the pin (16 retaining the shape of the solder paste after the soldering/reflowing process) (paragraphs 34-49).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Standing teaches wherein the at least one bead has a melting temperature higher than that of the reflowed solder (paragraph 47).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Standing teaches wherein the at least one bead is made of copper (paragraph 38).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Standing teaches wherein the at least one bead is spherical in shape (paragraph 46).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Standing teaches wherein the circuit package is a bottom-terminated component (Fig. 7).
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaacs et al. (US 2023/0067845 A1; hereinafter “Isaacs”).
Regarding claim 1, Isaacs teaches an information handling resource comprising: a circuit board (a printed circuit board PCB 110/200) comprising an electrically-conductive pad (mounting pads 204/408/508) (Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 21-31); a circuit package (a quad flat no-lead QFN 130) comprising an electrically-conductive pin (mounting pads of 130) (Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 21-31); and a preformed solder pellet (a solder paste before a soldering/reflowing process) comprising at least one bead (standoff particles 302/402/502/602), the preformed solder pellet configured to electrically couple the electrically-conductive pad to the electrically-conductive pin upon reflow (the solder paste after the soldering/reflowing process electrically coupling the mounting pads of 110/200 and the mounting pads of 130) and the at least one bead configured to provide mechanical standoff between the pad and the pin (302/402/502/602 as the standoff particles) (Figs. 3-6 and 8 and paragraphs 17-31 and 34).
Regarding claim 8, Isaacs teaches an information handling system comprising: a processor (a processor 115) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 21); and an information handling resource comprising: a circuit board (a printed circuit board PCB 110/200) comprising an electrically-conductive pad (mounting pads 204/408/508) (Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 21-31); a circuit package (a quad flat no-lead QFN 130) comprising an electrically-conductive pin (mounting pads of 130) (Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 21-31); and a preformed solder pellet (a solder paste before a soldering/reflowing process) comprising at least one bead (standoff particles 302/402/502/602), the preformed solder pellet configured to electrically couple the electrically-conductive pad to the electrically-conductive pin upon reflow (the solder paste after the soldering/reflowing process electrically coupling the mounting pads of 110/200 and the mounting pads of 130) and the at least one bead configured to provide mechanical standoff between the pad and the pin (302/402/502/602 as the standoff particles) (Figs. 3-6 and 8 and paragraphs 17-31 and 34).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Isaacs teaches wherein the at least one bead has a melting temperature higher than that of the reflowed solder (paragraph 25).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Isaacs teaches wherein the at least one bead is made of copper (paragraph 25).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Isaacs teaches wherein the at least one bead is spherical in shape (paragraph 25).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Isaacs teaches wherein the circuit package is a bottom-terminated component (Figs. 5-6 and paragraphs 19-21).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacs.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Isaacs teaches that the at least one bead is made of various materials such as copper for not melting during the solder reflowing process to preventing solder collapsing, etc. (paragraphs 17 and 25). While Isaacs does not also teach a material choice copper-plated polymer for the at least one bead, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize various materials, including the claimed copper-plated polymer, for forming the bead (the standoff particles) from Isaacs in order to provide the standoff particles with similar characteristics such as not melting during the solder reflowing process to preventing solder collapsing.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Isaacs teaches that a physical dimension of the at least one bead (a particle size or a diameter of the standoff particles) is application specific such as based on what types of components are being mounted to the PCB and provides an example that the diameter of the standoff particle is 4 mil (paragraphs 26-28). Then, while Isaacs does not explicitly teach the dimension of the bead to be between approximately 2 mils and approximately 3 mils as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the particle size or the diameter of the bead, including the claimed range between approximately 2 mils and approximately 3 mils, as a routine skill in the art for obtaining the optimal size of the solder paste containing the standoff particles based on the application specific as discussed in Isaacs. Furthermore, it has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacs in view of Daoud et al. (US 2021/0154775 A1; hereinafter “Daoud”).
Regarding claim 15, Isaacs teaches a method comprising: providing a preformed solder pellet (a solder paste prior to a soldering/reflowing process), the preformed solder pellet comprising at least one bead embedded therein (standoff particles 302/402/502/602); placing the preformed solder pellet on an electrically-conductive pad (mounting pads 204/408/508) of a circuit board (a printed circuit board PCB 110/200) (Figs. 3-6 and 8 and paragraphs 17-31 and 34); aligning (aligning as shown in Figs. 4-6) an electrically-conductive pin (mounting pads of 130) of a circuit package (a quad flat no-lead QFN 130) with the solder and the pad; and applying heat (the soldering/reflowing process) to the preformed solder pellet to create reflowed solder (the solder paste after the soldering/reflowing process) to electrically couple the electrically-conductive pad to the electrically-conductive pin such that the at least one bead provides mechanical standoff between the electrically-conductive pad and the electrically-conductive pin (Figs. 3-6 and 8 and paragraphs 17-31 and 34).
Isaacs does not explicitly teach that the preformed solder pellet is cut from a sheet of solder since Isaacs teaches the solder paste as the preformed solder pellet. Daoud teaches a method comprising: providing a preformed solder pellet (a shaped solder pads 12) comprising at least one bead embedded therein (compact particles 6 of a high-melting metal component 7 formed of copper embedded in 12) and cut from a sheet of solder (12 formed by cutting from a solder foil 1) in order to provide the desired shaped solder pad geometry having influential mechanical and electrical properties between the metallic structural parts 2 (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 33, 42 and 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Isaacs with that of Daoud in order to provide the desired shaped solder pad geometry having influential mechanical and electrical properties between the metallic structural parts 2.
Regarding claim 16, Isaacs teaches wherein the at least one bead has a melting temperature higher than that of the reflowed solder (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 17, Isaacs teaches wherein the at least one bead is made of copper (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 18, Isaacs teaches that the at least one bead is made of various materials such as copper for not melting during the solder reflowing process to preventing solder collapsing, etc. (paragraphs 17 and 25). While Isaacs does not also teach a material choice copper-plated polymer for the at least one bead, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize various materials, including the claimed copper-plated polymer, for forming the bead (the standoff particles) from Isaacs in order to provide the standoff particles with similar characteristics such as not melting during the solder reflowing process to preventing solder collapsing.
Regarding claim 19, Isaacs teaches that a physical dimension of the at least one bead (a particle size or a diameter of the standoff particles) is application specific such as based on what types of components are being mounted to the PCB and provides an example that the diameter of the standoff particle is 4 mil (paragraphs 26-28). Then, while Isaacs does not explicitly teach the dimension of the bead to be between approximately 2 mils and approximately 3 mils as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the particle size or the diameter of the bead, including the claimed range between approximately 2 mils and approximately 3 mils, as a routine skill in the art for obtaining the optimal size of the solder paste containing the standoff particles based on the application specific as discussed in Isaacs. Furthermore, it has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Isaacs teaches wherein the at least one bead is spherical in shape (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 21, Isaacs teaches wherein the circuit package is a bottom-terminated component (Figs. 5-6 and paragraphs 19-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights