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 § 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.
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.
Claims 9 and 20 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.
The term “about” in claims 9 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If Applicant intend any particular position of the channel, it should be clearly recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 11-14, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Juskey et al. (2013/0234344).
Re claim 1, Juskey et al. disclose (Fig. 1) a substrate (104) having a top side and an opposite bottom side;
a plurality of interconnect members (108) attached to the bottom side of the substrate (104) and being laterally spaced from each other, each of the interconnect members (108) having a first post portion (108) adjacent the substrate and a second portion (110) adjacent the first post portion so that the first post portion (108) is interposed between the second portion (110) and the substrate (104), the second portion (110) including a solderable material (solder bonds~ [0021]) and a solderable surface at a distal end of the second portion via which the molded package module is configured to be mounted to a motherboard (102);
and a mold (112~ [0025]) surrounding and extending between the plurality of interconnect members (108/110) (Fig. 1).
Re claim 2, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the first post portion (108) is a copper post ([0022]) and the second portion (110) is a solder post ([0021]).
Re claim 3, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the first post portion (108) is made of a same material as the second portion (110) ([0022] & [0021]).
Re claim 4, Juskey et al. disclose wherein a height of the first post portion (108) is greater than a height of the second portion (110) (Fig. 1).
Re claim 6, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the interconnect members (108/110) taper so that a diameter of the first post portion (108) adjacent the substrate (104) is different than a diameter of the second portion (110) proximate the solderable surface.
Re claim 8, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the second portion is a solder ball ([0021]).
Re claim 11, Juskey et al. disclose (Fig. 4) a motherboard ([0049]);
a substrate (104) having a top side and an opposite bottom side;
a plurality of interconnect members (108) attached to the bottom side of the substrate (104) and being laterally spaced from each other, each of the interconnect members (108) having a first post portion (108) adjacent the substrate and a second portion (110) adjacent the first post portion so that the first post portion (108) is interposed between the second portion (110) and the substrate (104), the second portion (110) including a solderable material (solder bonds~ [0021]) and a solderable surface at a distal end of the second portion via which the molded package module is configured to be mounted to a motherboard (102); and a mold (112~ [0025]) surrounding and extending between the plurality of interconnect members (108/110) (Fig. 4).
Re claim 12, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the first post portion (108) is a copper post ([0022]) and the second portion (110) is a solder post ([0021]).
Re claim 13, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the first post portion (108) is made of a same material as the second portion (110) ([0022] & [0021]).
Re claim 14, Juskey et al. disclose wherein a height of the first post portion (108) is greater than a height of the second portion (110) (Fig. 1).
Re claim 16, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the interconnect members (108/110) taper so that a diameter of the first post portion (108) adjacent the substrate (104) is different than a diameter of the second portion (110) proximate the solderable surface.
Re claim 18, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the interconnect members are electrically and thermally conductive ([0021-0022]).
Re claim 19, Juskey et al. disclose wherein the second portion is a solder ball ([0021]).
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) 5, 7, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juskey et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-14, 16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Re claims 5, 7, 15 and 17, Juskey et al. does not clearly disclose wherein the height of the second portion is 10 to 20 microns; and wherein the interconnect members taper at an angle of ±10 degrees relative to an axis of the interconnect members.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited height and taper angle through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of height and taper angle, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height and taper angle or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height and taper angle or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen height and taper angle are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 10, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to have a die attached to the bottom side of the substrate member and between the interconnect members, the die surrounded by the mold, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose a particular design choice to obtain the desired associated outcome for the resultant device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
further comprising a channel about the second portion of the interconnect members for outgassing when the interconnect members are mounted to the motherboard, as recited in claim 9; and
further comprising a channel about the second portion of the interconnect members for outgassing when the molded package module is mounted to the motherboard, as recited in claim 20;
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 12,009,312 B2, US 2024/00063124 A1, US 2023/0326824 A1, US 2023/0135057 A1 and US 2020/0120806 A1 disclose a similar configuration for a molded package module with a plurality of interconnects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights