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 Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group, I, Species I, Figs. 1-5, claims 1-4 & 12-14 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
2. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 4, line 2: delete “is” and insert --are--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
3. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bower et al. (US 2017/0250167).
Re claim 1, Bower teaches, under BRI, Fig. 5, [0062], a micro-component substrate structure, comprising:
-a carrier substrate (60) having a corrugated surface (upper surface of 60); and
-a micro-component (device 12) having a bottom surface disposed on the corrugated surface (of 60).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 13, Bower teaches, Fig. 5, wherein a plurality of micro-components (12) is in contact with the corrugated surface (of 60).
Re claim 14, Bower teaches, Fig. 5, wherein a surface material of the corrugated surface has been processed (applied with layer 24) to reduce adhesion between the micro-component and the corrugated surface (of 60).
4. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sri-Jayantha et al. (US 2012/0309187).
Re claim 1, Sri-Jayantha teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1a-b, [0004], a micro-component substrate structure, comprising:
-a carrier substrate (22) having a corrugated surface (defined by 28); and
-a micro-component (die 20) having a bottom surface disposed on the corrugated surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
160
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Sri-Jayantha teaches, wherein the corrugated surface comprises an array of rounded (Figs. 1a-b), pyramid, cylindrical, rectangular, or tetrahedral corrugations.
Re claim 3, Sri-Jayantha teaches, Fig. 1b, wherein no more than 25 of an outermost surface of each of one or more of the corrugations is in contact with the micro-component (20).
Re claim 4, Sri-Jayantha teaches, Fig. 1b, wherein a plurality of the corrugations is in contact with the micro-component (20).
5. Claims 1-4, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akram et al. (US 5,483,741).
Re claim 1, Akram teaches, under BRI, Figs. 14-15, cols. 7-8, a micro-component substrate structure, comprising:
-a carrier substrate (12) having a corrugated surface (Fig. 14); and
-a micro-component (85) having a bottom surface disposed on the corrugated surface (Fig. 15).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
423
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Akram teaches, Fig. 14, wherein the corrugated surface comprises an array of rounded, pyramid (Fig. 14), cylindrical, rectangular, or tetrahedral corrugations.
Re claim 3, Akram teaches, Fig. 15, wherein no more than 25 of an outermost surface of each of one or more of the corrugations is in contact with the micro-component (85).
Re claim 4, Akram teaches, Fig. 15, wherein a plurality of the corrugations is in contact with the micro-component (85).
Re claim 12, Akram teaches, Fig. 14, wherein the corrugated surface has corrugations having a height of no greater than one hundred microns (e.g., based on height of 65 is on the order of 50-100 um, col. 6, 2nd par.).
Re claim 14, Akram teaches, Fig. 14, wherein a surface material of the corrugated surface has been processed (applied with 78A) to reduce adhesion between the micro-component (85) and the corrugated surface.
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.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akram.
The teachings of Akram have been discussed above.
Re claim 13, Akram does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of micro-components is in contact with the corrugated surface.
Akram does teach multi-chip module, non-encapsulated dice (e.g., chips) (col. 1, lines 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ/modify the teaching as taught by Akram to obtain a plurality of micro-components is in contact with the corrugated surface as claimed, because it aids in achieving desired multi-chip module. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Akram (US 6,437,423, Fig. 3B) discloses a plurality of contact members connecting with a semiconductor component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 7/27/26
Prosecution Insights