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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 11/24/2025, the previous rejections under 112 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited references do not describe the amended claim limitations. Specifically noted are the limitations in claims 1 an d7 regarding the strain and temperature sensors being inserted into the actual molding compound via a hole in a closed mold. Examiner agrees that the previously cited references did not disclose these elements but after further search and consideration, a new reference, Sheng, is cited which describes the sensors in the claimed manner. Additionally, a previously cited reference, Konishi, is cited as teaching a number of the elements of claims 1 and 7. The other claims remain rejected in view of Konishi, Sheng, and other previously cited references.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-6 are directed to an apparatus but some of these claims limitations which are related to either the process intended to be performed by the apparatus or the material worked on by the apparatus. In apparatus claims, only the structure of the claimed invention is considered patentably distinct from the prior art. Limitations related to the material being worked upon or the intended use of the apparatus are not patentably distinct, see MPEP §2114(II) and §2115. For example, limitations describing the epoxy composition or the method of packaging are not considered patentably distinct from the prior art as long as the prior art has the structural limitations claimed.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 5,635,115) modified by Sheng (CN115507973A, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Konishi meets the claimed, An electronic package molding device comprising: a planar heating element (Konishi col. 18 line 41 and Figure 11B and C describe press heater 35b) configured to mold an electronic package by approaching one surface of an electronic package to melt an epoxy molding compound disposed on the one surface of the electronic package and apply pressure to bring the epoxy molding compound into close contact with the electronic package, (Konishi col. 18 lines 38—66 describe moving the press heater 35b downward to contact and cure a resin sheet 25 on top of a circuit board 10) a gas pressure regulator configured to adjust gas pressure between the electronic package and the planar heating element; (Konishi col. 18 lines 40-46 describe a vacuum chamber which necessarily has a vacuum for adjusting the pressure, see Figure 11B/C showing the vacuum chamber 35c surrounds both the press heater 35b and the circuit board 10) a mold configured to accommodate the planar heating element and the electronic package (Konishi Figure 11B/C show the mold as heat pressing apparatus 35) and wherein the epoxy molding compound is prepared to contain silica (SiO2), thermosetting epoxy, anhydrous acid, phenol, amines, coupling, a silane catalyst and wax, melts at about 80° C. or higher, has a thermal conductivity of about 0.5 W/mk to 2 W/mk, has an elastic modulus of about 30.71 GPa within an error range of about 3.4 GPa at 25° C., has an elastic modulus of about 1.85 GPa within an error range of about 0.26 GPa at 150° C., has a thermal expansion coefficient of about 8.2×10−6/° C. within an error range of about 0.78×10−6/° C. below 145° C., and has a thermal expansion coefficient of about 26.5×10−6/° C. within an error range of 0.63×10−6/° C. above 145° C (Konishi col. 10 lines 11-12 describe epoxy resins however the exact properties of the epoxy are details of the material worked upon by the apparatus, not structural limitations of the actual apparatus, and are therefore not patentably distinct from the prior art.)
Konishi does not specify a closed mold or described sensors and does not meet the claimed, a closed mold configured to accommodate the planar heating element and the electronic package, and to have a mold hole communicating with an interior and an exterior of the closed mold; a strain sensor configured to measure a strain of the epoxy molding compound; and a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the epoxy molding compound, wherein the strain sensor and the temperature sensor are introduced into the interior of the closed mold via the mold hole, and are inserted into the epoxy molding compound disposed in the closed mold.
Analogous in the field of electronic encapsulation, Sheng meets the claimed, a closed mold configured to accommodate the electronic package, (Sheng Figure 1 shows a closed mold having a top mold 1 and a bottom mold 2, which accommodates a chips 4/5, see [0052]) and to have a mold hole communicating with an interior and an exterior of the closed mold; (Sheng Figure 1 shows the cables 6 for the sensors run through the mold, therefore a hole necessarily exists, see also Figure 2) a strain sensor configured to measure a strain of the epoxy molding compound; and a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the epoxy molding compound, (Sheng [0058] describes both an optical temperature and strain sensor) wherein the strain sensor and the temperature sensor are introduced into the interior of the closed mold via the mold hole, (Sheng Figure 1 shows the cables 6 of the sensors entering the mold) and are inserted into the epoxy molding compound disposed in the closed mold (Sheng Figure 1 and [0058]-[0059] describe the temperature and strain sensors directly contact and measure the epoxy molding compound.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the molding apparatus of Konishi with the closed mold of Sheng in order to properly position the sensors, see Sheng [0058] and the optical temperature and strain sensors of Sheng in order to monitor changes in stress and strain in real-time and prevent damage and failure, see Sheng [0004]-[0006].
Regarding claim 2, Konishi meets the claimed, The electronic package molding device of claim 1, further comprising a conductor plate that is attached to a lower surface of the planar heating element and receives heat from the planar heating element, (Konishi Figures 11B/C show the mold 35d under the press heater 35b, see also col. 18 lines 25-34) wherein the conductor plate is disposed on an upper side of the electronic package so that a lower surface of the conductor plate faces an upper surface of the electronic package in parallel, and the lower surface of the conductor plate is configured to apply the heat and the pressure by directly contacting the epoxy molding compound while the planar heating element moves downward along with the conductor plate (Konishi col. 18 lines 25-45 describe the molding process, see also Figure 11B/C showing the press heater 35b and mold 35d being lowered to contact the resin sheet 25.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi modified by Sheng as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Higuchi (US 2008/0313895.)
Regarding claim 3, Konishi meets the claimed, The electronic package molding device of claim 1, wherein the gas pressure regulator includes: surrounding the electronic package and the planar heating element to form a closed space; and a gas inflow and outflow device that controls inflow and outflow of gas inside the space bag (Konishi Figures 10 and 11 and col. 16 lines 39-56 show a vacuum chamber 35c which houses both the press heater 35b and the resin sheet 23/ circuit board 10. The vacuum chamber 35c as described in col. 18 necessarily includes an inflow outflow device because the chamber is both vacuumized and pressurized to normal pressure.)
Konishi describes a vacuum chamber not a space bag. Higuchi also describes a method of encapsulating electronic components and meets the claimed, a space bag (Higuchi [0085] and Figure 9 describe the vacuum bag 13.)
The courts have held that substituting one known art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the vacuum chamber of Konishi with the bag described in Higuchi because it is a known apparatus for forming a vacuum around an element as it is being encapsulated, see Higuchi [0085].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi as modified by Sheng as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Liang (DE102018211718A1, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 4, Konishi does not describe the material of the heating element and does not meet the claimed, The electronic package molding device of claim 1, wherein the planar heating element includes at least one of CNT, carbon fiber, and carbon black.
Analogous in the field of electronic device encapsulation, Liang meets the claimed, The electronic package molding device of claim 1, wherein the planar heating element includes at least one of CNT, carbon fiber, and carbon black (Liang [0006] describes molds for encapsulation made out of carbon fiber.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the mold of Konishi with the carbon fiber mold of Liang in order to obtain a mold with the desired linear expansion coefficient or one that is capable of performing encapsulation, see Liang [0006].
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi modified by Sheng as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Gong (US 2022/0392777.)
Regarding claim 6, Sheng meets the claimed, The electronic package molding device of claim 1, wherein the strain sensor includes one of a strain gauge and a fiber optic sensor (Sheng [0058] describes optical fiber for the strain sensor.)
Sheng does not describe a thermocouple as the temperature sensor. Analogous in the field of semiconductor packaging, Gong meets the claimed, and the temperature sensor includes a thermocouple (Gong [0015] and [0035] describes sensors such as strain gauges or thermocouples.)
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the fiber temperature sensor described in Sheng for the thermocouple described in Gong because it is a known method of measuring temperature, see Gong [0015] and [0035].
Claims 7-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi modified by Sheng and Mizushima (WO2019035431A1, see English copy previously provided.)
Regarding claim 7, Konishi meets the claimed, An electronic package molding method comprising: placing an electronic package inside mold (Konishi col. 18 lines 38-39 describe placing a circuit board 10 into a pressing apparatus 35) in which a planar heating element configured to generate heat is accommodated, (Konishi col. 18 lines 41-42 and Figure 11B/C describe the press heater 35b) and providing an epoxy molding compound on one surface of the electronic package, (Konishi col. 18 lines 18-21 describe placing a resin sheet 25 on the circuit board 10, col. 10 lines 11-12 describe epoxy) adjusting gas pressure between the electronic package and the planar heating element molding the electronic package, (Konishi col. 18 lines 41-46 describe using a vacuum to form a vacuum within the vacuum chamber 35c) the molding of the electronic package includes moving the planar heating element towards the one surface of the electronic package to apply heat to the epoxy molding compound and at the same time apply pressure to bring the epoxy molding compound into close contact with the electronic package, (Konishi col. 18 lines 41-49 describe moving the press heater 35b towards the circuit board 10 to contact and cure the resin sheet) wherein the epoxy molding compound is prepared to contain thermosetting epoxy, (Konishi col. 10 lines 11-12 describe thermosetting epoxy.)
Konishi does not describe a closed mold or temperature or strain sensor and does not meet the claimed, a closed mold (Sheng Figure 1 shows a closed mold made of a top mold 1 and bottom mold 2) and measuring a strain and a temperature of the epoxy molding compound to identify a degree of the molding in real time, (Sheng [0057] describes real-time monitoring using a temperature and strain sensor) the measuring of the strain and the temperature include; introducing a strain sensor and a temperature sensor into the closed mold via a mold hole which is formed at the closed mold and communicates with an interior and an exterior of the closed mold, (Sheng Figure 1 and [0058] describe installing the sensors into the mold, the mold shown in Figure 1 is closed and necessarily includes a hole through the cables for the sensors are wired) and inserting the stain sensor and the temperature sensor into the epoxy molding compound (Sheng Figure 1 and [0057]-[0058] describe the optical strain and temperature sensors actually in the epoxy.)
Analogous in the field of electronics encapsulating, Sheng meets the claimed, and measuring a strain and a temperature of the epoxy molding compound to identify a degree of the molding in real time, the measuring of the strain and the temperature include; introducing a strain sensor and a temperature sensor into the closed mold via a mold hole which is formed at the closed mold and communicates with an interior and an exterior of the closed mold, and inserting the stain sensor and the temperature sensor into the epoxy molding compound.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the molding apparatus of Konishi with the closed mold of Sheng in order to properly position the sensors, see Sheng [0058] and the optical fiber temperature and strain sensors and monitoring steps of Sheng in order to monitor changes in stress and strain in real-time and prevent damage and failure, see Sheng [0004]-[0006].
Konishi does not describe other details of the epoxy and does not meet the claimed, wherein the epoxy molding compound is prepared to contain silica (SiO2), anhydrous acid, phenol, amines, coupling, a silane coupling agent, and wax, melts at about 80° C. or higher, has a thermal conductivity of about 0.5 W/mk to 2 W/mk, has an elastic modulus of about 30.71 GPa within an error range of about 3.4 GPa at 25° C., has an elastic modulus of about 1.85 GPa within an error range of about 0.26 GPa at 150° C., has a thermal expansion coefficient of about 8.2×10−6/° C. within an error range of about 0.78×10−6/° C. below 145° C., and has a thermal expansion coefficient of about 26.5×10−6/° C. within an error range of 0.63×10−6/° C. above 145° C.
Analogous in the field of semiconductor encapsulation, Mizushima describes an epoxy resin composition having silica and meets the claimed, wherein the epoxy molding compound is prepared to contain silica (SiO2), (Mizushima [0051] describes silica fillers) anhydrous acid, phenol, amines, (Mizushima [0041] describes the epoxy resin contains phenol, amine, and acid anhydride curing agents) coupling, a silane coupling agent, (Mizushima [0054] describes coupling agents including a silane based coupling agent) and wax, (Mizushima [0059] describes wax release agents) melts at about 80° C. or higher, (Mizushima [0038] describes melting temperature is between 40°C and 180°C which overlaps the claimed range, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP §2144.04 (I)). Mizushima does not explicitly meet the claimed, has a thermal conductivity of about 0.5 W/mk to 2 W/mk, has an elastic modulus of about 30.71 GPa within an error range of about 3.4 GPa at 25° C., has an elastic modulus of about 1.85 GPa within an error range of about 0.26 GPa at 150° C., has a thermal expansion coefficient of about 8.2×10−6/° C. within an error range of about 0.78×10−6/° C. below 145° C., and has a thermal expansion coefficient of about 26.5×10−6/° C. within an error range of 0.63×10−6/° C. above 145° C, however, Mizushima describes all the components of the epoxy resin and [0052] describes the thermal expansion coefficient, thermal conductivity, and modulus of elasticity broadly. If the epoxy resin compound in Mizushima is the same as that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties as well, see MPEP §2112.01(II).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the epoxy composition of Konishi with the silica, anhydrous acid, phenol, and amines to act as curing agents, the silane coupling agent to lower dielectric relation values, and wax as a mold release, see Mizushima [0041], [0017], and [0059].
Regarding claim 8, Konishi meets the claimed, The electronic package molding method of claim 7, wherein a lower surface of a conductor plate attached to a lower surface of the planar heating element and an upper surface of the electronic package are vertically disposed to face each other in parallel (Konishi Figures 11B/C show the mold 35d on the bottom of the press heater 35b and facing the resin sheet and circuit board below) and the epoxy molding compound is supplied to the upper surface of the electronic package, (Konishi col. 18 lines 18-21 describe providing the resin) the moving of the planar heating element includes applying the heat and the pressure by bringing the lower surface of the conductor plate into close contact with the epoxy molding compound as the planar heating element descends with the conductor plate (Konishi col. 18 lines 38-49 describe pressing and heating the resin and circuit board with the press heater 35b, see also Figure 11B/C.)
Regarding claim 14, Konishi and Mizushima meet the claimed, A semiconductor package module manufactured by the electronic package molding method of claim 7 (Konishi and Mizushima combined teach all the limitations of claim 7 and Konishi describes the substrate made.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi as modified by Sheng and Mizushima as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Higuchi (US 2008/0313895.)
Regarding claim 9, Konishi meets the claimed, The electronic package molding method of claim 7, wherein the adjusting of the gas pressure includes providing a closed space which accommodates the electronic package and the planar heating element configured to surround the electronic package and the heating element and adjusting a gas pressure inside the space bag by using a gas inflow and outflow device. (Konishi Figures 10 and 11 and col. 16 lines 39-56 show a vacuum chamber 35c which houses both the press heater 35b and the resin sheet 23/ circuit board 10.)
Konishi describes a vacuum chamber not a space bag. Higuchi also describes a method of encapsulating electronic components and meets the claimed, a space bag (Higuchi [0085] and Figure 9 describe the vacuum bag 13.)
The courts have held that substituting one known art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the vacuum chamber of Konishi with the bag described in Higuchi because it is a known apparatus for forming a vacuum around an element as it is being encapsulated, see Higuchi [0085].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi modified by Sheng and Mizushima as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Li (CN109390241A, see English translation previously provided.)
Regarding claim 10, Konishi does not describe the time or temperature and does not describe molding at 170°C for two hours. Sheng [0059] describes molding the epoxy at 175°C and maintaining the temperature but does not describe, maintaining the temperature at about 175° C. for about two hours.
Analogous in the field of electronics packaging, Li meets the claimed, The electronic package molding method of claim 7, wherein the molding of the electronic package further includes curing the epoxy molding compound (Li [0036] describes an epoxy encapsulation material) by increasing temperature of the epoxy molding compound to 175° C (Li [0046] describes heating at 175°C which would ‘gradually’ increase the temperature of the epoxy molding compound as it is being heated) and then maintaining the temperature at about 175° C. for about two hours (Li [0046] describes 6 to 10 hours rather than 2 hours but does disclose curing the shell as quickly as possible to avoid overheating. Since the heating of the epoxy is a result-effective variable affecting the performance, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the heating time through routine optimization to prevent overheating while still curing the epoxy, see Li [0046].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of heating and curing the epoxy as described in Konishi with the method of heating the epoxy to 175°C for a prolonged time period as disclosed in Li in order to ensure a cure without overheating, see Li [00046].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi as modified by Mizushima as applied to claim 7 and in further view of Liang (DE102018211718A1, see English translation previously provided.)
Regarding claim 11, Konishi does not describe the material of the heating element and does not meet the claimed, The electronic package molding method of claim 7, wherein the planar heating element includes at least one of CNT, carbon fiber, and carbon black.
Analogous in the field of electronic device encapsulation, Liang meets the claimed, The electronic package molding method of claim 7, wherein the planar heating element includes at least one of CNT, carbon fiber, and carbon black (Liang [0006] describes molds for encapsulation made out of carbon fiber.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the mold of Konishi with the carbon fiber mold of Liang in order to obtain a mold with the desired linear expansion coefficient or one that is capable of performing encapsulation, see Liang [0006].
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi as modified by Sheng and Mizushima as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Gong (US 2022/0392777.)
Regarding claim 13, Sheng meets the claimed, The electronic package molding method of claim 7, wherein a strain measurement sensor for measuring strain of the epoxy molding compound includes one of a strain gauge and a fiber optic sensor (Sheng [0058] describes optical fiber for the strain sensor.)
Analogous in the field of semiconductor packaging, Gong further meets the claimed, and a temperature sensor for measuring temperature of the epoxy molding compound includes a thermocouple (Gong [0015] and [0035] describes sensors such as strain gauges or thermocouples.)
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the fiber temperature sensor described in Sheng for the thermocouple described in Gong because it is a known method of measuring temperature, see Gong [0015] and [0035].
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744