DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18/603,113 filed on March 12, 2024.
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 Species 2 disclosed in Fig. 2M in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicants indicated that claims 1-10 and 12-20 read on the elected species. However, claim 13 read on a non-elected species of the claimed invention. For instance, claim 13 recites “…and a second non-through cutting line, having a cutting width greater than the cutting width of the first cutting line, is formed to expose a portion of the surface of the metal pillars opposite to the second contact metallizations”. This, however, is a feature exclusive of species 3 disclosed on Fig. 2N. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-10, 12-20, and newly added claim 21.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 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 1 recites the limitations “the surface area of the corresponding first contact metallization of the electronic component”, “…the surface of each metal pillar,…”, “the surface of the second contact metallizations…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the surface of the metal pillars” twice (in line 5 and line 12). It is unclear whether the second recited “the surface of the metal pillars” was intended to relate back to “the surface of the metal pillars” (line 5) or to set forth an additional surface of the metal pillars.
Claims 14-17 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 14 recites the limitations “…the first resin…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claim 1, 4, 6, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yen (US 2020/0135604).
Regarding Claim 1, Yen (see, e.g., Figs. 22A-22E), teaches a method comprising:
forming, on a surface of a substrate 2004, at least two metal pillars (i.e., metal pillars within 2001) intended to be respectively connected to at least two first contact metallizations of an electronic component 2002, the metal pillars each having a surface area greater than the surface area of the corresponding first contact metallization of the electronic component 2002 (see, e.g., Figs. 22A, 22C);
forming, over a portion only of the surface of each metal pillar, a second contact metallization 2005 (see, e.g., Fig. 22A);
covering the surface of the substrate 2004, the metal pillars, and the second contact metallizations 2005 with a first resin layer 2003A (see, e.g., Fig. 22A);
removing the substrate 2004 to expose a surface 2001F of the metal pillars, opposite to the second contact metallizations 2005 (see, e.g., Fig. 22B);
bonding and electrically connecting the electronic components 2002, by the first contact metallizations, to the surface 2001F of the metal pillars opposite to the second contact metallizations 2005 (see, e.g., Fig. 22C);
thinning the first resin layer 2003A to expose the surface of the second contact metallizations 2005 opposite to the metal pillars (see, e.g., Fig. 22D); and
cutting the first resin layer 2003A to individualize a plurality of surface-mounted electronic components 200B (see, e.g., Fig. 22E).
Regarding Claim 4, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yen (see, e.g., Figs. 22A-22E), teaches that after the bonding and electrically connecting the electronic components 2002 to the surface of the metal pillars opposite to the second contact metallizations 2005, a covering of the electronic components 2002 and of the second contact metallizations 2005 with a second resin layer 2003B (see, e.g., Fig. 22C).
Regarding Claim 6, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yen (see, e.g., Figs. 22A-22E), teaches that the metal pillars are made of copper, of gold, of tin, of silver, or of an alloy of a plurality of these materials (see, e.g., par. 0052).
Regarding Claim 7, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yen (see, e.g., Figs. 22A-22E), teaches that the second contact metallizations 2005 are made of copper, of gold, of tin, of silver, or of an alloy of a plurality of these materials (see, e.g., par. 0056).
Regarding Claim 18, Yen (see, e.g., Figs. 22A-22E), teaches a method comprising:
forming a plurality of metal pillars (i.e., metal pillars within 2001) on a substrate 2004, each of the plurality of metal pillars having a first surface 2001B opposite the substrate 2004 with a first surface area (see, e.g., par. 0103);
forming a plurality of contact metallizations 2005 on the first surface 2001B of each of the plurality of metal pillars, each contact metallization 2005 having a first surface opposite the substrate 2004 with a second surface area smaller than the first surface area;
forming a resin layer 2003A on the substrate 2004, the plurality of metal pillars, and the plurality of contact metallizations 2005 (see, e.g., Fig. 22A, pars. 0058, 0103);
exposing a second surface 2001F of the plurality of metal pillars opposite the first surface 2001B of the plurality of metal pillars (see, e.g., Fig. 22B, par. 0103);
forming a plurality of electronic components 2002 coupled between each two adjacent metal pillars of the plurality of metal pillars (see, e.g., Fig. 22C, par. 0100); and
forming an opening in the resin layer 2003A between each of the plurality of electronic components 2002 to separate a plurality of surface-mounted electronic components 200B (see, e.g., Fig. 22E, par. 0103).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (US 2020/0135604) in view of Park (US 2023/0411263).
Regarding Claim 2, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the metal pillars are formed by electrolytic growth.
Park (see, e.g., Fig. 6E), on the other hand, teaches using electrolytic plating to form metal pillars 636 (see, e.g., par. 0044).
At the time of filing, metal pillars were grown by various deposition methods, including, sputtering, electrolytic plating, electroless plating, etc. At the time of filing, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions to depositing the metal pillars with a reasonable expectation of success, as evidenced by Park.
Therefore, given the teachings of Park, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and it would have been obvious to deposit the metal pillars in Yen’s process by electrolytic growth, as taught by Park.
See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the second contact metallizations are formed by electrolytic growth.
See also the comments stated above in claim 2 which are considered repeated here.
Claim 8-10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (US 2020/0135604).
Regarding Claim 8, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the second contact metallizations 2005 have a height in the range of 20 µm to 100 µm.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the height of the second contact metallizations in Yen’s device. The specific claimed height, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the height of the second contact metallizations in Yen’s device, as the courts have held that changes in height without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular height is nothing more than one among numerous heights that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed height, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed height in Yen’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen height is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 9, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 8. Yen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the second contact metallizations have a height greater than or equal to 30 µm.
See also the comments stated above in claim 8 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 10, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the metal pillars have a height in the range of 80 µm to 150 µm.
See also the comments stated above in claim 8 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 19, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 18. Yen (see, e.g., Figs. 22A-22E), teaches that each metal pillar of the plurality of metal pillars includes a first portion and a second portion having a different shape from the first portion (see, e.g., Fig. 22A). Yen does not teach that the second portion of each metal pillar being closer to the second portion of each adjacent metal pillar than to the first portion of each adjacent metal pillar.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the distance between the second portions of adjacent metal pillars in Yen’s device. The specific claimed distance, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the distance between the second portions of adjacent metal pillars in Yen’s device, as the courts have held that changes in distance without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular distance is nothing more than one among numerous distances that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed distance in Yen’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen distance or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen distance is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 20, Yen teaches all aspects of claim 19. Yen (see, e.g., Figs. 22A-22E), teaches that the second portion of each metal pillar is coupled to an electronic component 2002 of the plurality of electronic components 2002 (see, e.g., Fig. 22C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571) 272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights