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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura 2011030401677.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 appear to be drawn to an intermediate product that contains a cavity with moisture. Claim 1 and 11 sets wherein the moisture passing gap is aligned with the cavity and moisture retained in the cavity escapes through the moisture passing gap during thermal processes. Thus, moisture must be in the cavity for an out come of :
the cavity and moisture retained in the cavity escapes through the moisture passing gap during thermal processes, to occur.
As to claim 1 and 11, Nakamura teaches A semiconductor package, comprising: a package substrate (figure 1 4 12 item 10 or 10a) having a top surface (top of item 10) and an opposing bottom surface (bottom of item 10), wherein the package substrate comprises a top build-up wiring layer (items 14 15 in figure 1), an upper dielectric layer covering the top build-up wiring layer (item 13), at least one inner insulating layer ( item 16 in figure 1 4 and 12), at least one inner metal wiring layer( items 17 and 18 in figure 1 4 and 12) , a pad layer disposed over the upper dielectric layer on the top surface (item 12), and ball pads on the bottom surface (items 45); a semiconductor device mounted on the top surface of the package substrate (item 41); a passive component mounted on the top surface of the package substrate (chip capacitor); a molding compound encapsulating the semiconductor device and the passive component on the top surface of the package substrate (item 44 paragraph 53); and a moisture passing gap disposed in the top build-up wiring layer of the package substrate (the region between items 14 and 15 figure 1) and a second moisture passing gap disposed in the at least one inner metal wiring layer of the package substrate ( gap between items 17 18).
Nakamura does not teach a cavity disposed between the passive component and the top surface of the package substrate though Nakamura teaches the sealed void/ cavity was likely to form if no precautions were taken.
Thus, it would have would have been obvious to form the device of Nakamura without the gap or the elevated height. Since it would reduce processing time since additional steps to form the gap DP or the higher elevation of the pads would not be necessary increasing throughput and speed of manufacturing.
Nakamura teaches wherein the moisture passing gap is aligned with the cavity (the gaps are directly under the region where the void/cavity would form see figures 4 12 and 16) recitation of moisture retained in the cavity escapes through the moisture passing gap during thermal processes is inherent since the rest of the structure is the same the outcome of a thermal process would be the same. The claim does not require a thermal process only that it would affect the device.
It is noted that claims 1 and 11 seem to indicate the claim is drawn to an intermediate product since after the thermal cycle there would be no moisture. Which is before the device is finished.
b. As to claims 2 and 12 Nakamura teaches wherein the package substrate comprises a ball grid array substrate (paragraph 55 item 45).
c. As to claims 3 and 13 Nakamura teaches wherein the passive component comprises a capacitor (capacitor chip).
d. As to claims 4 and 14, Nakamura teaches wherein terminals of the passive component are electrically connected to respective bonding pads of the pad layer of the package substrate (items 12 a bonded to the chip capacitor)
e. As to claims 5 and 15, recitation of wherein the top build-up wiring layer functions as a power or ground plane is intended usage thus Nakamura teaches wherein the top build-up wiring layer functions as a power or ground plane.
f. As to claims 6 and 16 Nakamura teaches wherein the moisture passing gap is filled with the upper dielectric layer (items 13 between the 14s).
e. As to claims 8 and 18 Nakamura teaches wherein the first moisture passing gap has a width that is smaller than or equal to a width of the passive component, and the second moisture passing gap has a width that is smaller than or equal to the width of the passive component ( chip is depicted wider than the gaps between 15 and 18 further the gap is arbitrary applicant has not defined what defines a gap).
f. As to claim 9 and 19, recitation of wherein the first moisture passing gap has a surface area that is smaller than or equal to a surface area of the passive component (the gap is arbitrary since applicant provide not definition of what defines the gap). Thus, Nakamura teaches the wherein the first moisture passing gap has a surface area that is smaller than or equal to a surface area of the passive component.
g. As to claims 10 and 20, Nakamura teaches solder balls mounted on the ball pads, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/202 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to:
Claims 1-20 stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakamura (US 2011/0304016 A1).
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Independent Claims 1 and 11 have
been amended to incorporate the features of former dependent Claims 7 and 17, and
further clarified to recite that:
"the moisture passing gap is vertically aligned with the cavity to form a moisture10 rease path extending from the cavity through the top build-up wiring layer."
For the reasons set forth below, Nakamura fails to teach, suggest, or motivate the
structural features of independent Claims 1 and 11, whether considered individually or
in any combination.
A. Nakamura Explicitly Teaches Away from Creating Voids or Cavities (MPEP @
2145)
Under MPEP @ 2145, a prior art reference "teaches away" when a person having
ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), upon reading the reference, would be led in a
direction contrary to the path taken by the applicant, or would be discouraged from
following the path taken by the applicant.
In the Office Action (page 6), the Examiner asserted that "it would have been
obvious to form the device of Nakamura without the gap or the elevated height...
increasing throughput and speed of manufacturing. "Applicant respectfully disagrees.25 1.akamura's Sole Objective is to Eliminate Voids: Nakamura's entire
technical disclosure is explicitly dedicated to preventing and eliminating
voids/cavities underneath chip components
This is not found convincing Nakamura teaches the old way was know to provide voids so the old way was performed. Thus it cannot be teaching away in the strictest sense Nakamura does not actively state no one should ever form the device in the manner and the device would not function. Instead Nakamura indicate that the prior art did do it in the manner claimed resulting in voids figure 16A and 16b. Applicant shows no improvement to the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 III B:
A prima facie case of obviousness may also be rebutted by showing that the art, in any material respect, teaches away from the claimed invention. U.S. v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-2 (1966). See also Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326, 90 USPQ2d 1865, 1873 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“An inference of nonobviousness is especially strong where the prior art’s teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as to why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the known elements.”) and Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1305, 115 USPQ2d 2012, 2019 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (The prior art taught away from use of 200 ppm benzalkonium chloride (“BAK”), as claimed, teaching “that BAK should be minimized in ophthalmic formulations to avoid safety problems”.).
Teaching away was not established in In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Applicant argued that the prior art taught away from use of a protective layer for a reflective article having a thickness within the claimed range of “50 to 100 Angstroms.” Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant’s claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer “should be not less than about [100 Angstroms].” The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. “Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender’s ‘suitable’ range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that ‘[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]’ falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less. [W]e are therefore ‘not convinced that there was a sufficient teaching away in the art to overcome [the] strong case of obviousness’ made out by Zehender.”). See MPEP § 2145, subsection X.D., for a discussion of “teaching away” references.
Applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness based on a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range by showing “(1) [t]hat the prior art taught away from the claimed invention...or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.” Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court found that patentee offered neither evidence of teaching away of the prior art nor new and unexpected results of the claimed invention drawn to a weight plate having three elongated handle openings. 392 F.3d at 1323, 73 USPQ2d at 1229. The court then turned to the patentee’s secondary considerations evidence of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, satisfaction of a long-felt need, and copying by others and found that Iron Grip had failed to establish: (A) a nexus between the licensing of its patent to three competitors and the “merits of the invention”; (B) that a competitor copied the claimed three-hole grip plate because “[n]ot every competing product that falls within the scope of a patent is evidence of copying” and “[o]therwise every infringement suit would automatically confirm the nonobviousness of the patent”; and (C) a long-felt but unmet need for the claimed three-hole grip plate prior to its patent because “[a]bsent a showing of a long-felt need or the failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence of nonobviousness.” 392 F.3d at 1324-25, 73 USPQ2d at 1229-30. See also In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1178, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1083-1084 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (The court determined the prior art did not teach away from the claimed invention because it only suggested that a denser coverboard could serve to protect a less dense insulation board and did not require a coverboard denser than 6 lbs./ft3).
In this instance Nakamura prevents moisture contamination performing it the old way reinserts a known factor which applicant does not address how to resolve the moisture in the void. Applicant is doing nothing more than reintroducing a problem that had been previously known.
Further using the method of the prior art still reducing processing time since additional steps to form the gap DP or the higher elevation of the pads would not be necessary increasing throughput and speed of manufacturing. As such there are still other advantages to using the old method.
With respect to Even assuming arguendo that a cavity accidentally existed beneath a component in Nakamura, Nakamura fails to teach or suggest providing a dedicated moisture
passing gap in a top build-up wiring layer vertically aligned with the cavity to form
a moisture release path extending from the cavity through the top build-up
wiring layer.
This is not found persuasive Nakamura depicts it in such a manner as suggest the structure as claimed.
With respect to The Examiner
argues that the regular space between Nakamura's wiring traces (items 14 and
15 in Figure l) constitutes a "moisture passing gap." However, Nakamura's
wiring traces 14 and 15 are routine electrical interconnects arranged for signal routing. Nakamura contains no teaching or suggestion to position any specific
wiring gap directly underneath a component cavity to serve as a moisture escape structure.
This is an assertion and ignores the suggest of the positions of Nakamura as depicted Applicant has not established.
Nakamura suggest the layout as depicted, applicant has established the difference between “routine” layouts and applicants claimed gap. The burden is on applicant distinguish between the two.
Further the assertion that Nakamura contains no teaching or suggestion to position any specific
wiring gap directly underneath a component cavity to serve as a moisture escape structure is irrelevant since Nakamura depicts the gap the gap would inherently provide the outcome. The office and the law makes no distinction between a incidental structure and a purposeful structure. A teaching is a teaching thus Nakamura teaches the gap as disclosed.
With respect to (b) Reconfigure Nakamura's wiring layout (items 14/15) so that a gap
is intentionally vertically aligned with that unwanted cavity to form a moisture release path.
The figures of Nakamura already suggest the gap thus there is no “reconfiguring” of layer 14 and 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights