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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character 20 has been used to designate structurally different interconnection systems in figures 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, reference character 38 has been used to designate structurally different sockets in figures 2, 9-10, 11-12, and reference character 44 has been used to designate structurally different frames in figures 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-10, 11-12. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s position that using reference character 20 to designate structurally different interconnection systems is proper. The examiner notes that “The examiner should ensure that the figures are correctly described in the brief description of the several views of the drawing section of the specification, that the reference characters are properly applied, that no single reference character is used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part, and that there are no superfluous illustrations.” See MPEP 608.02(e). The examiner now notes that interconnection systems in figures 2-3, 4-5, and 6-7 are structurally different, and thus, interconnection system in figs. 2-3, the interconnection system in figures 4-5, and the interconnection system in figures 6-7 should each be referred to with a different reference character. For example, the interconnection system shown in figures 2-3 includes a socket 38 while the interconnection systems shown in figures 4-5 and 6-7 do not include a socket 38, the interconnection system in figures 4-5 includes a plurality of opens to receive solder balls, and the interconnection system in figures 6-7 has a single central hole. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The corrections made to the specification in response filed on May 26, 2026 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 22-24 and 26-29 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 22 contain the typographical error “the receive respective substrate alignment features of the mating substrate,” on page 13 lines 28-29. This limitation is understood to recite the respective substrate alignment features of the mating substrate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 23-24 and 26-29 are also objected for containing the same informalities because claims 23-24 and 26-29 depend from claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a first plurality of solder balls attached to respective ones of the lands so as to provide an electrical function,” on page 13 lines 4-5, this limitation introduces new matter. The examiner first notes that “While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” See MPEP 2163 Section I. B. (emphasis in original). The examiner now notes there in no express, implicit, or inherent disclosure of a first plurality of solder balls attached to respective ones of the lands so as to provide an electrical function because solder balls attached to respective ones of the lands on a first surface of an interposer is never shown in the figures or described in the specification. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter.
Claims 6 and 30-33 also contain new matter because claims 6 and 30-33 depend from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
8. 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.
Claim 32 is 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 32 recites the limitation “the solder balls of the mating substrate,” on page 15 line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 32 will interpreted as introducing solder balls of the mating substrate prior to the above limitation.
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 1-4, 21-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dozier II et al. (US 5,772,451) in view of D’Amato et al. (US 2003/0020179).
Regarding Claim 1:
Dozier II discloses a main board assembly comprising:
an interposer (support substrate, See fig. 3, ref. no. 310, and col. 22 line 38-54) having an array of lands (portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes that are on the top surface of the support substrate, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 310, 310a, 312, and col. 22 lines 38-54) arranged in a grid (the portions of the electrically conductive plating of plated through holes are in a land grid array socket for making pressure contacts to the pads on a land grid array package, See fig. 3, ref. no. 300, 304, and col. 22 lines 20-38) on a first surface of the interposer (top surface of the support substrate, See fig. 3, ref. no. 310a), wherein a plurality of lands of the array of lands are electrical lands that serve an electrical function (the portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes are in an electrical path that electrically connects the land grid array package to the printed circuit board, See fig. 3 ref. nos. 302, 304, 312, 314, 320, and col. 22 lines 20-38), and
an electrical interconnect member (plurality of free-standing resilient contact structures bonded to the portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes that are on the top surface of the supports substrate, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 312, 320, col. 22 lines 61-67 and col. 23 lines 1-19) that makes electrical contact with at least some of the plurality of lands;
a frame (frame, See fig. 3, ref. no. 330 and col. 23 lines 47-53) that receives the electrical interconnect member.
Dozier II does not disclose at least two of the lands of the array of lands are mechanical lands that serve only a mechanical alignment function and not an electrical function, each of the mechanical lands having a respective interposer alignment feature attached thereto; and the at least two of the lands are not included in the plurality of the lands; the frame having at least two alignment guides, each guide having a respective one of the interposer alignment features positioned in the guide.
D’Amato discloses at least two of the lands of the array of lands are mechanical lands (alignment pads, See fig. 5, ref. nos. 500, 502, fig. 7, ref. no. 500, figs. 11a, 11b, ref. no. 502 and paragraph 37-38) that serve only a mechanical alignment function and not an electrical function, each of the mechanical lands having a respective interposer alignment feature attached thereto (alignment ball, See fig. 7, ref. no. 700, figs. 11a-12, ref. no. 1100, paragraphs 39 and 48); and the at least two of the lands are not included in the plurality of the lands (the alignment pads are not grouped together with the contact pads, See fig. 5, ref. nos. 106, 108, 500, 502) the frame having at least two alignment guides (corresponding holes in the socket, See fig. 12 and paragraph 39), each guide having a respective one of the interposer alignment features positioned in the guide (at least part of each alignment ball protrudes through a corresponding hole in the socket, See fig. 12, ref. no. 1100 and paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main board assembly of Dozier II to include at least two of the lands of the array of lands are mechanical lands that serve only a mechanical alignment function and not an electrical function, each of the mechanical lands having a respective interposer alignment feature attached thereto; and the at least two of the lands are not included in the plurality of the lands; the frame having at least two alignment guides, each guide having a respective one of the interposer alignment features positioned in the guide as taught by D’Amato in order to precisely align the support substrate in the frame. (See D’Amato paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 2:
Dozier II discloses wherein the frame surrounds the interposer and the electrical interconnect member (the frame surrounds the support substrate and the plurality of free-standing resilient contact structures, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 310, 312, 330).
Regarding Claim 3:
D’Amato disclose wherein the at least two alignment guides are further arranged to receive at least two mating substrate alignment features that are attached to at least two lands on a mating interface of a mating substrate (the holes in the socket are not completely filled by the alignment ball, thus, the holes in the socket can receive another alignment ball in the unfilled portion of the holes, See fig. 12, ref. nos. 300, 1100 and paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 4:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses the above stated main board assembly. Dozier II further discloses a mating substrate (bottom surface of the LGA package, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 304, 304a, and col. 22 lines 30-38).
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato does not disclose wherein the frame further comprises at least two mating substrate alignment guides arranged to receive at least two mating substrate alignment features that are attached to at least two lands on a mating interface of a mating substrate.
D’Amato discloses wherein the frame further comprises at least two mating substrate alignment guides (corresponding holes in the socket, See fig. 12 and paragraph 39) arranged to receive at least two mating substrate alignment features that are attached to at least two lands on a mating interface of a mating substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main board assembly of Dozier II and D’Amato to include wherein the frame further comprises at least two mating substrate alignment guides arranged to receive at least two mating substrate alignment features that are attached to at least two lands on a mating interface of a mating substrate as taught by D’Amato in order to precisely align the LGA package in the frame. (See D’Amato paragraph 10).
Further, the examiner also notes that drilling two more holes into the frame of Dozier II would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since it has been held a duplication of parts is an obvious expedient and not a patentable distinction unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 21:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses the above stated main board assembly. The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato further discloses the at least two alignment guides comprise respective downwardly facing holes, that extend into the frame (corresponding holes in the socket are vertically oriented, See D’Amato fig. 12 and paragraph 39).
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato does not disclose the frame further comprises upwardly facing openings that are configured to receive respective substrate alignment features of a mating substrate along an insertion direction.
D’Amato discloses the frame further comprises upwardly facing openings that are configured to receive respective substrate alignment features of a mating substrate along an insertion direction (corresponding holes in the socket are vertically oriented, See fig. 12 and paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main board assembly of Dozier II and D’Amato to include the frame further comprises upwardly facing openings that are configured to receive respective substrate alignment features of a mating substrate along an insertion direction as taught by D’Amato so that a LGA package having alignment balls corresponding to the holes in the frame can be precisely aligned in the frame. (See D’Amato paragraph 10).
Further, the examiner also notes that drilling two more holes into the frame of Dozier II would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since it has been held a duplication of parts is an obvious expedient and not a patentable distinction unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 22:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses herein the upwardly facing openings are through holes that are configured to align the receive respective substrate alignment features of the mating substrate with the electrical interconnect member along the insertion direction (the corresponding holes in the socket are vertically oriented and are located such that when the alignment balls are placing in the corresponding holes the contact pads of a CLGA package are aligned with the socket’s elastomer buttons, See D’Amato fig. 12, ref. nos. 100, 300, 402, and paragraph 37-39).
Regarding Claim 23:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses wherein the through holes are further aligned with respective one of the plurality of lands of the interposer along the insertion direction (the corresponding holes will be formed in the stepped portion of the frame and thus the corresponding holes are located such that a straight line in the vertical direction does not intersect the corresponding holes and portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes that are on the top surface of the support substrate, See Dozier II fig. 3, ref. nos. 310, 310a, 312, 336, col. 22 lines 38-54, and col. 24 lines 10-30).
Regarding Claim 24:
The above stated combination of Dozier II an D’Amato discloses wherein the interposer is mounted to main board lands of a main printed circuit board (the support substrate is soldered to terminals of a printed circuit board, See Dozier fig. 3, ref. nos. 302, 306, 310, and col. 22 lines 30-51) and the through hole are further aligned with respective ones of the main board lands along the insertion direction (the corresponding holes will be formed in the stepped portion of the frame and thus the corresponding hole are located such that a straight line in the vertical direction does not intersect the corresponding holes and the terminals of the printed circuit board, See Dozier II fig. 3, ref. nos. 302, 306, 336, col. 22 lines 30-51 and col. 24 lines 10-30).
Regarding Claim 25:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses two corresponding holes will be formed in the left stepped portion of the frame and two corresponding holes will be formed in the right stepped portion of the frame (See Dozier II fig. 3, ref. nos. 302, 306, 336, col. 22 lines 30-51 and col. 24 lines 10-30 and See fig. 12 and paragraph 39). The above stated combination of Dozier and D’Amato further discloses the support substrate extends further to the left in the horizontal direction and further to the right in the horizontal direction than the bottom surface of the LGA package (See Dozier fig. 3, ref. nos. 308, 310). The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato is silent as to wherein the at least two alignment guides are disposed outboard of the upwardly facing openings along a plane that is oriented perpendicular to the insertion direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the at least two alignment guides outboard of the upwardly facing openings along a plane that is oriented perpendicular to the insertion direction to provide additional spacing between the alignment guide and the upwardly facing opening, since it has been held that a rearrangement of parts that does not change the operation of the device is an obvious expedient and not a patentable distinction. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 26:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses the interconnection system further comprises the mating substrate (bottom surface of the LGA package, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 304, 304a, and col. 22 lines 30-38).
Regarding Claim 28:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses wherein the mating substrate comprises an IC package substrate (the substrate the integrated circuits in the LGA package are formed, See fig. 3, ref. no. 304. The examiner notes that the LGA package is a type integrated circuit package and that integrated circuit are formed on a substrate. See Dozier II col. 3 lines 50-58 and D’Amato paragraph 32) and the main printed circuit board comprises a host board (the examiner notes that the printed circuit board of Dozier II is a host board because the printed circuit board hosts the LGA socket, See Dozier II fig. 3, ref. nos. 300, 302, 306, 310, and col. 22 lines 20-51)
Regarding Claim 29:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses the mating substrate is configured to be mounted to the electrical interconnect member through the through holes so as to define a separable interface (the LGA package is demountable from the LGA socket, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 300, 304, col. 22 lines 20-38, and col. 23 lines 19-25).
Claims 5-6 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dozier II et al. (US 5,772,451) in view of Huang (US 2007/0134950) in view of D’Amato et al. (US 2003/0020179) further in view of Disclosed Without Attribution (“Method for the Use of Larger Corner Solder Balls with PCB Alignment Holes for the Alignment of Very Fine Pitch Chip Scale Package During Placement”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Dozier II discloses an interconnection system comprising:
a frame (frame, See fig. 3, ref. no. 330 and col. 23 lines 47-53);
an interposer (support substrate, See fig. 3, ref. no. 310, and col. 22 lines 38-54) that defines a first surface (top surface of support substrate, See fig. 3, ref. no. 310a) and a second surface (bottom surface of support substrate, See fig. 3, ref. no. 310b) opposite the first surface, solder balls (solder balls, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 310b, 314 and col. 22 lines 30-54) at the second surface that are configured to be mounted to a main board (printed circuit board, See fig. 3, ref. no. 302), lands at the first surface (portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes that are on the top surface of the support substrate, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 310, 310a, 312, and col. 22 lines 38-54), the frame aligns with the a mating substrate (the frame is sized such that the land grid array package fits inside the frame, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 304 and 330).
Dozier II does not disclose a first plurality of solder balls attached to respective ones of lands so as to provide an electrical function, and a second plurality of solder balls attached to respective ones of the lands so as to provide only a mechanical alignment function, whereby the second plurality of solder balls are aligned with the frame that.
Huang discloses a first plurality of solder balls attached to respective ones of lands so as to provide an electrical function (solder balls attached to the bottom ends of contacts to contacts on a motherboard, See figs. 4-5, ref. nos. 14, 141 and paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnection system of Dozier II to include a first plurality of solder balls attached to respective one of portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes that are on the top surface of the support substrate and interconnection elements as taught by Huang for ease of manufacturing the interconnection system by using a known technique for attaching interconnection elements to portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes that are on the top surface of the support substrate.
The above stated combination of Dozier II and Huang does not disclose a second plurality of solder balls attached to respective ones of the lands so as to provide only a mechanical alignment function, whereby the second plurality of solder balls are aligned with the frame.
D’Amato discloses a second plurality of alignment balls (alignment ball, See fig. 7, ref. no. 700, figs. 11a-12, ref. no. 1100, paragraphs 39 and 48) attached to respective ones of the lands (alignment pads, See fig. 5, ref. nos. 500, 502, fig. 7, ref. no. 500, figs. 11a, 11b, ref. no. 502 and paragraph 37-38) so as to provide only a mechanical alignment function, whereby the second plurality of alignment balls are aligned with the frame (the alignment balls are aligned with the socket, See fig. 12, ref. nos. 300, 1100, paragraphs 37-39
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnection system of Dozier II and Huang to include a second plurality of alignment balls attached to respective ones of the lands so as to provide only a mechanical alignment function, whereby the second plurality of solder alignment are aligned with the frame as taught by D’Amato in order to precisely align the support substrate in the frame. (See D’Amato paragraph 10).
The above stated combination of Dozier II, Huang, and D’Amato does not disclose the alignment balls are solder balls.
Disclosed Without Attribution discloses using large solder balls for alignment with printed circuit board holes (See figs. 4-6 and Detail Description Section. The examiner notes, as shown in figure 6, larger solder balls will take longer to melt due to their larger mass.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnection system of Dozier II, Huang, and D’Amato to use solder balls for each interposer alignment features and each mating substrate alignment feature as taught by Discloses Without Attribution for ease of manufacturing the main board assembly by using a widely available material.
Regarding Claim 6:
Dozier II discloses wherein the frame is configured to align with the mating substrate, which causes the mating substrate to be aligned with the main board (the frame is sized such that the land grid array package fit insides the frame and the frame is located above terminals of the printed circuit board, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 304, 306, 330, col. 22 lines 30-38).
Regarding Claim 30:
The above stated combination of Dozier II, Huang, D’Amato, and Disclosed Without Attribution discloses the above stated interconnection system.
The above stated combination of Dozier II, Huang, D’Amato, and Disclosed Without Attribution does not disclose wherein the frame comprises through-holes that are configured to receive solder balls of the mating substrate so as to align them mating substrate with in the frame.
Disclosed Without Attribution discloses through hole in a printed circuit board sized to receive solder balls of a chip scale package to align the chip scale package with the printed circuit board (See figs. 5-6 and Detailed Description Section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnection system of Dozier II, Huang, D’Amato, and Disclosed Without Attribution to include through holes sized to receive solder balls of a chip scale package to align the chip scale package with the frame further as taught by Disclosed Without Attribution in order to precisely align the LGA package in the frame.
Further, the examiner also notes that drilling two more holes into the frame of Dozier II would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date since it has been held a duplication of parts is an obvious expedient and not a patentable distinction unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 31:
Dozier II discloses an electrical interconnect member (plurality of free-standing resilient contact structures bonded to the portions of electrically conductive plating of plated through holes that are on the top surface of the supports substrate, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 312, 320, col. 22 lines 61-67 and col. 23 lines 1-19) positioned between the frame and the interposer, wherein the electrical interconnect member is configured to place the interposer in electrical communication with the mate substrate (the plurality of free-standing resilient contact structures are made of resilient conductive material, See col. 15 lines 23-61 and col. 22 lines 61-66)
Regard Claim 32:
The above stated combination of Dozier II, Huang, D’Amato, and Disclosed Without Attribution discloses the above stated interconnection system. Dozier II further discloses wherein the electrical interconnect member is configured to be placed in compression by the solder balls of the mating substrate, which places the interposer in electrical communication with the mating substrate (the plurality of free-standing resilient contact structures are made of resilient conductive material which is capable of being compressed by solder balls of a mating substrate that places the support substrate in electrical communication with the mating substrate, See fig. 3, ref. nos. 304, 310, 320, col. 8 lines 32-38, col. 15 lines 23-61, and col. 22 lines 61-66).
The above stated combination of Dozier II, Huang, D’Amato, and Disclosed Without Attribution does not discloses the mating substrate has solder balls.
Dozier II discloses a ball grid array package having solder balls on a bottom surface (See fig. 4, ref. nos. 404, 408, col. 29 lines 52-67 and col. 30 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnection system of Dozier II, Huang, D’Amato, and Disclosed Without Attribution to a ball grid array package having solder balls on a bottom surface as taught by Dozier in order to increase the number of types of semiconductor packages that the interconnect system can be used with.
Regarding Claim 33:
Dozier II discloses wherein the frame is mounted to the main board (the socket is mounted to a printed circuit board, See fig. 3, ref. no. 300, 302, col. 22 lines 20-29, and col. 23 lines 26-33).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dozier II et al. (US 5,772,451) in view of D’Amato et al. (US 2003/0020179) further in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art.
Regarding Claim 19:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses the above stated main board assembly.
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato does not disclose wherein the electrical interconnect member comprises an anisotropically conductive compliant contact layer.
Applicant’s admitted prior art discloses wherein the electrical interconnect member comprises an anisotropically conductive compliant contact layer (PariPoser®, See paragraph 31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main board assembly of Dozier II and D’Amato, wherein the electrical interconnect member comprises an anisotropically conductive compliant contact layer as taught by Applicant’s admitted prior art, so the LGA package does not need to be precisely aligned in the frame.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dozier II et al. (US 5,772,451) and D’Amato et al. (US 2003/0020179) in view of Disclosed Without Attribution (“Method for the Use of Larger Corner Solder Balls with PCB Alignment Holes for the Alignment of Very Fine Pitch Chip Scale Package During Placement”).
Regarding Claim 27:
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato discloses the above stated main board assembly.
The above stated combination of Dozier II and D’Amato does not disclose wherein each interposer alignment feature and each mating substrate alignment features comprises a respective solder ball.
Disclosed Without Attribution discloses using large solder balls for alignment with printed circuit board holes (See figs. 4-6 and Detail Description Section. The examiner notes, as shown in figure 6, larger solder balls will take longer to melt due to their larger mass.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main board assembly of Dozier II and D’Amato to using solder balls for each interposer alignment features and each mating substrate alignment feature as taught by Discloses Without Attribution for ease of manufacturing the main board assembly by using a widely available material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026, with respect to independent claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument that the combination of Dozier II and D’Amato does not disclose the limitations of an interposer having at least two lands that are mechanical lands that serve only a mechanical alignment function and not an electrical function and each of the mechanical lands having a respective attached interposer alignment feature is not persuasive because applicant’s argument is based on a bodily incorporation of Dozier II and D’Amato rather that considering what the disclosures of Dozier II and D’Amato would teach one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner first notes "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). The examiner also notes that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. The examiner additionally notes that “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”, Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. The examiner further notes that office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141.03 Section I. The examiner now notes that D’Amato teaches the concept of aligning components with a socket through the use alignment balls attached to alignment pads on the surfaces of components that face the socket and corresponding holes in the socket. See fig. 5, ref. nos. 500, 502, fig. 7, ref. nos. 500, 700 figs. 11a, 11b, ref. no. 502, 1100, fig. 12 ref. no. 1100 paragraph 37-39 and 48. The examiner next notes that the top surface of the support substrate of Dozier II faces the frame of Dozier II and that to align the support substrate with the frame as taught by D’Amato one of ordinary skill in the art will place alignment balls mounted to lands on top surface of the support substrate and form corresponding holes in the frame. See Dozier II fig. 3, ref. nos. 310 and 330. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that Dozier II and D’Amato do not teach an interposer having at least two lands that are mechanical lands that serve only a mechanical alignment function and not an electrical function and each of the mechanical lands having a respective attached interposer alignment feature is not persuasive because Dozier II and D’Amato collectively teach these limitations.
The applicant’s argument that the Office action does not provide a proper motivation to combine Dozier II and D’Amato is also not persuasive. The examiner first notes that applicant’s argument regarding not providing a proper motivation to combine is based on applicant’s proposed bodily incorporation of Dozier II and D’Amato. The examiner next notes that as discussed above, Dozier II and D’Amato collectively teach an interposer having at least two lands that are mechanical lands that serve only a mechanical alignment function and not an electrical function and each of the mechanical lands having a respective attached interposer alignment feature. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the Office action does not provide a proper motivation to combine Dozier II and D’Amato is not persuasive because the motivation, in order to precisely align the support substrate in the frame, provided in the Office action mail on January 23, 2026 is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BRETT SQUIRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights