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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, drawn to claims 9-20 in the reply filed on 7/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/26/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 9,11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cokely et al. (US 2002/0096746).
Claim 9: Cokely et al. provides a fabrication tool (fixture 100, Fig. 2A, is used during a reflow process [0037]) capable [for assembling a flip-chip stack], comprising: a core body (110); an opening (114) in the core body [for receiving a flip-chip die having interconnect bumps]; and an air cavity (112) below the opening, wherein the opening (114) has a first width (Fig. 2A), the air cavity (112) has a second width, and the first width is greater than the second width (Fig. 2A), [wherein when the flip-chip die is present, the interconnect bumps are suspended in the air cavity].
The remaining limitations in brackets recited in claim 9 have been treated as merely the intended use of the claimed apparatus. The apparatus of Cokely et al. is capable of performing the recited intended use and therefore meets the limitations of the claims.
Claim 11: Cokely et al. provides the opening (114) forms a shelf feature having landing areas in the core body (Fig. 2A), and [edges of the flip-chip die lands on the shelf feature when the flip-chip die is present] ([0038-0039]).
Claim 13: Cokely et al. provides the air cavity (112) fully penetrates through the core body (Fig. 2A).
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) 10,12,14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cokely et al. (US 2002/0096746).
Claim 10: While Cokely et al. provides someone skilled in the art would design the width of the cavities by simple geometric considerations [0038] but fails to explicitly disclose the first width is between about 2 mm to about 40 mm, and the second width is between about 1.95 mm to about 38 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first width is between about 2 mm to about 40 mm, and the second width is between about 1.95 mm to about 38 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 12: While Cokely et al. provides someone skilled in the art would design the cavities by simple geometric considerations [0038] but fails to explicitly disclose the landing areas each have a width between about 25 µm to 1 about mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the landing areas each have a width between about 25 µm to 1 about mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 14: Cokely et al. provides the air cavity (112) partially penetrates the core body, and the core body has a base portion (118) below the air cavity, but fails to disclose the base portion has a thickness between about 100 µm to about 500 µm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the base portion has a thickness between about 100 µm to about 500 µm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 15: Cokely et al. provides a through-hole cavity (116) below the air cavity (112), wherein the through-hole cavity fully penetrates through the base portion (Fig. 2A).
Claim 16: While Cokely et al. provides someone skilled in the art would design the cavities by simple geometric considerations [0038] but fails to explicitly disclose the opening has a first depth between 25 µm to 300 µm, and the air cavity has a second depth between about 50 µm to about 500 µm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the opening has a first depth between 25 µm to 300 µm, and the air cavity has a second depth between about 50 µm to about 500 µm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 17: Cokely et al. provides a fabrication tool (100, Fig. 2A) capable [for assembling a flip-chip stack], comprising: a core body (110); an opening (114) and air cavities (112) below each of the openings, wherein each sidewall of the openings extends beyond each sidewall of the air cavities along a horizontal direction (Fig. 2A), [wherein when the flip-chip dies are present, a bottom surface of each of the flip- chip dies are exposed in the air cavities]; but fails to disclose multiple openings in the core body for receiving multiple flip-chip dies.
However, Cokely et al. teaches a fixture (600, Fig. 6, 7A-7C; [0047]) with multiple openings that can accommodate multiple chips.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the original fixture provided by Cokely et al. to include multiple openings as taught by Cokely et al. in order to provide a fixture with multiple openings and air cavities that can accommodate multiple stacks.
Further, Cokely et al. discloses the claimed invention except for multiple openings in the core body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the core body have multiple openings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
The remaining limitations in brackets recited in claim 17 have been treated as merely the intended use of the claimed apparatus. The apparatus of Cokely et al. is capable of performing the recited intended use and therefore meets the limitations of the claims.
Claim 18: Cokely et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the core body is made of aluminum or stainless steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the core body to be made of aluminum or stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 19: Cokely et al. provides when the flip-chip dies are present, they do not completely cover the air cavities ([0038]; Fig. 2B).
Claim 20: Cokely et al. provides the air cavities (112) have protruding portions that protrude from the sidewalls of the air cavities in a direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction (Fig. 2A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wood et al. (US 5,519,332) teaches a fabrication tool (Fig. 2A) with an opening and an air cavity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda J Kreiling whose telephone number is (571)272-6091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Amanda Kreiling/Examiner, Art Unit 3726 9/28/26
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
