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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claims 5 and 15 cite that “the first land electrode is arranged in any one of four corner portions of the second main surface of the resin portion.” Fig. 3 shows corner portions 421, 422, 423 and 424 but does not clearly indicate in the figures or specification where a “corner portion” is intended to terminate in relation to adjacent corner portions.
For examination purposes, the term “corner portion” is interpreted broadly such that each corner portion includes a corresponding quadrant of the second main surface 402 of the resin.
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) 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takao (JP 2006303029 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Takao teaches an electronic component (shown Fig. 1) comprising:
an IC chip (2, shown Fig. 1b); and
a package (6, a sealing resin) covering the IC chip (shown Fig. 1b),
wherein the package includes a resin portion (6) having a first main surface (top surface shown Fig. 1b) and a second main surface (bottom surface shown Fig. 1b) facing each other in a predetermined direction and covering the IC chip (shown Fig. 1b), and
a plurality of land electrodes (shown Fig. 1a, including 3c and 4c) exposed from the second main surface of the resin portion (shown Fig. 1b),
the plurality of land electrodes includes
one first land electrode (4c), and
three or more second land electrodes (3c) being remaining land electrodes other than the first land electrode (shown Figs. 1a-1b),
an area of the first land electrode is larger than the area of each of the three or more second land electrodes in a plan view from the predetermined direction (shown Fig. 1a), and
a plan-view shape of the first land electrode (square) is different from plan-view shapes of the three or more second land electrodes (rectangular, wherein two joining sides are not equal in length) in the plan view from the predetermined direction (shown Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 2, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of land electrodes is electrically connected to the IC chip (see Fig. 5c which shows first land electrode 4c being electrically connected through 4a and 4b and second land electrodes electrically connected through wires 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the first land electrode is electrically connected to the IC chip (see Fig. 5c which shows first land electrode 4c being electrically connected through 4a and 4b).
Regarding Claim 4, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the plan-view shapes of the three or more second land electrodes are same as each other (shown Fig. 1a).
Regarding Claim 5, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein
the resin portion is rectangular in a plan view (shown Fig. 1a), and
the first land electrode is arranged at any one of four corner portions of the second main surface of the resin portion (shown Fig. 1a, wherein the first land electrode is at least partially in a “corner portion” of the second main surface if the second main surface as viewed from plan in Fig. 1a is divided into four quadrants, see also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
Regarding Claim 14, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 2, wherein the plan-view shapes of the three or more second land electrodes are same as each other (shown Fig. 1a).
Regarding Claim 15, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 2, wherein
the resin portion is rectangular in a plan view (shown Fig. 1a), and
the first land electrode is arranged at any one of four corner portions of the second main surface of the resin portion (shown Fig. 1a, wherein the first land electrode is at least partially in a “corner portion” of the second main surface if the second main surface as viewed from plan in Fig. 1a is divided into four quadrants, see also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao (JP 2006303029 A) in further view of Zhu (CN 112614813 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein
the plan-view shape of the first land electrode is rectangular (shown Fig. 1a, wherein a square is interpreted as a type of rectangle), and
the plan-view shape of each of the three or more second land electrodes are further rectangular. Takao does not explicitly teach an arc-shaped portion on each of the three or more second land electrodes from plan-view.
Zhu teaches a superhigh frequency surface-mounted front pin bonding pad (2, shown Fig. 5) which comprises “an arc-shaped member with narrow upper part and wide lower part”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the second land electrodes to include arc-shaped portions to meet design specifications. More specifically, a modification of this kind would “realize good vertical transmission of radio frequency”, optimize echo loss, and be suitable for conventional manufacturing techniques.
Regarding Claim 7, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein each of the three or more second land electrodes includes a rectangular first portion in the plan view, but does not explicitly teach a second portion having a narrower width as being farther away from the first portion in the plan view, and in each of the three or more second land electrodes, the first portion and the second portion are arranged in an order of the first portion and the second portion when viewed from an outer edge of the second main surface of the resin portion.
Zhu teaches a superhigh frequency surface-mounted front pin bonding pad (2, shown Fig. 5) which comprises “an arc-shaped member with narrow upper part and wide lower part”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the second land electrodes to include arc-shaped portions to meet design specifications. More specifically, a modification of this kind would “realize good vertical transmission of radio frequency”, optimize echo loss, and be suitable for conventional manufacturing techniques.
This modification would further teach a second portion having a narrower width as being farther away from the first portion in the plan view, and in each of the three or more second land electrodes, the first portion and the second portion are arranged in an order of the first portion and the second portion when viewed from an outer edge of the second main surface of the resin portion.
Regarding Claim 8, Takao as modified by Zhu teaches the electronic component according to claim 7, wherein the package further includes a plurality of inner electrodes (3a, 3b, 4a and 4b) arranged in the resin portion (shown Fig. 1b),
the plurality of inner electrodes is connected to the plurality of land electrodes in a one-to-one manner, and is connected to the IC chip (shown Fig. 1b), and
each of the plurality of land electrodes is encompassed in a plan view by a corresponding inner electrode of the plurality of inner electrodes (see Fig. 1b, which shows inner electrodes 3a, 3b, 4a and 4b entirely covering corresponding land electrodes 3c and 4c respectively).
Regarding Claim 9, Takao as modified by Zhu teaches the electronic component according to claim 8, wherein the IC chip has a plurality of outer terminals (shown Fig. 3), and
each of the plurality of inner electrodes includes a first portion (3b and 4b) encompassing a corresponding land electrode of the plurality of land electrodes in the plan view and having a plan-view shape along an outer edge of the corresponding land electrode in the plan view (shown Fig. 1b), and
a second portion (3a, 4a and 5) protruding from the first portion in the plan view toward a center of the IC chip and partially overlapping in the plan view with a corresponding outer terminal of the plurality of outer terminals shown Fig. 3, wherein 3a and 5 protrude from a first portion 3b and 4a protrudes from 4b toward a center of the IC chip).
Regarding Claim 16, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 2, wherein
the plan-view shape of the first land electrode is rectangular (shown Fig. 1a, wherein a square is interpreted as a type of rectangle), and
the plan-view shape of each of the three or more second land electrodes are further rectangular. Takao does not explicitly teach an arc-shaped portion on each of the three or more second land electrodes from plan-view.
Zhu teaches a superhigh frequency surface-mounted front pin bonding pad (2, shown Fig. 5) which comprises “an arc-shaped member with narrow upper part and wide lower part”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the second land electrodes to include arc-shaped portions to meet design specifications. More specifically, a modification of this kind would “realize good vertical transmission of radio frequency”, optimize echo loss, and be suitable for conventional manufacturing techniques.
Regarding Claim 17, Takao teaches the electronic component according to claim 2, wherein each of the three or more second land electrodes includes a rectangular first portion in the plan view, but does not explicitly teach a second portion having a narrower width as being farther away from the first portion in the plan view, and in each of the three or more second land electrodes, the first portion and the second portion are arranged in an order of the first portion and the second portion when viewed from an outer edge of the second main surface of the resin portion.
Zhu teaches a superhigh frequency surface-mounted front pin bonding pad (2, shown Fig. 5) which comprises “an arc-shaped member with narrow upper part and wide lower part”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the shape of the second land electrodes to include arc-shaped portions to meet design specifications. More specifically, a modification of this kind would “realize good vertical transmission of radio frequency”, optimize echo loss, and be suitable for conventional manufacturing techniques.
This modification would further teach a second portion having a narrower width as being farther away from the first portion in the plan view, and in each of the three or more second land electrodes, the first portion and the second portion are arranged in an order of the first portion and the second portion when viewed from an outer edge of the second main surface of the resin portion.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao (JP 2006303029 A) in view of Zhu (CN 112614813 A) and further in view of Ozaki (US 20110068467 A1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Takao as modified by Zhu teaches the electronic component according to claim 8, wherein the resin portion has the first main surface covering the IC chip and the second main surface and the plurality of inner electrodes and the plurality of land electrodes are arranged in the resin portion.
Takao does not teach the resin portion including a firs resin portion and second resin portion having a first filler and second filler respectively, wherein an average particle diameter of the second filler is smaller (as drawn to claim 12) or larger (as drawn to claim 13) than an average particle diameter of the first filler.
Ozaki teaches an electronic component (100, shown Fig. 1) wherein an IC chip (130) is bonded to a circuit board (102) by a plurality of bumps (132) and pads (140), wherein the electronic component further comprises a resin portion (120) comprising a first main surface (120a) of a first resin portion (124) and a second main surface (interface between 122 and 102) of a second resin portion (122), wherein the first resin portion covers the IC chip, and wherein the plurality of bumps and pads electrically connecting the IC chip to the circuit board are arranged in the second resin portion, and wherein compositions of the first resin portion and the second resin portion may have fillers with different average particle diameters (see Ozaki: [0047]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the resin portion of Takao to be comprised of a first resin portion and a second resin portion as taught in Ozaki as this improves mounting efficiency and reliability while maintaining optimal balance between bonding strength and stable resin shape (see [0076] and [0080]).
Ozaki is silent regarding which resin comprises the filler with a larger average particle diameter. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product
not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination
was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. See also MPEP 2144.05.
More specifically to this case, Ozaki shows that average particle diameter of the resin filler is a result-effective variable because it reveals that “increasing the average particle diameter of the filler leads to higher fluidity of the resin composition” (see [0047]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art using this prior art teaching, therefore, would anticipate and predict the optimal average particle diameter of each of the first resin portion and second resin portion of Ozaki as applied to Takao to optimize bonding strength and resin stability (see also [0076] and [0080]). Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
More specifically to claims 12-13, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, through routine optimization and design choice, to implement the first resin portion and second resin portion of Ozaki as applied to Takao wherein either the average particle diameter of the second filler is smaller than an average particle diameter of the first filler (as drawn to claim 12) or an average particle diameter o the first filler is smaller than an average particle diameter of the second filler (as drawn to claim 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 10, 11, 18 and 19, Takao teaches the electronic component of claims 1 and 2 respectively, wherein the IC chip has a plurality of outer terminals (shown Fig. 3). Takao is silent regarding the application of the terminals of the IC chip.
Jain (US 20180115356 A1) teaches an electronic component package comprising an IC chip (16, shown Fig. 2) wherein the IC chip further comprises a plurality of outer terminals (shown Fig. 2),
the plurality of outer terminals includes two or more high-frequency signal terminals (see [0030] and Fig. 3B), and two or more non-high-frequency signal terminals (shown Fig. 3B), each of the two or more high-frequency signal terminals is an input/output terminal of high-frequency signals (described as being capable of carrying “high frequency signals”, see [0030]), each of the two or more non-high-frequency signal terminals is a power supply terminal or a control terminal or a ground terminal (shown Fig. 3B).
The prior art does not explicitly teach or suggest in any combination the first land electrode being connected to one of the terminals (high-frequency or non-high-frequency) without teaching away from the previously cited limitations in claim 1.
As such Claims 10, 11, 18 or 19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and incorporating all limitations of claims 1 or 1 and 2 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Oida (US 6693243 B1) teaches a surface mounting component and mounted structure wherein a first land electrode (35) may be off-centered (see Fig. 4) and may be shaped differently than a plurality of second land electrodes (34).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/C.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights