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 § 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.
1. Claims 1-4, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brand (US 7,405,487) as evidenced by LV et al. (US 2018/0084657; hereafter known as LV).
Regarding claim 1, Brand teaches a method (col. 5 line 36- col. 6 line 14) depicted in Figures 3A and 3B wherein a structure comprising a support member (support member- 130) has a composition disposed on each face of the structure (encapsulating material- 160; shown to be on both sides in Figure 3B). As the composition is applied as a molding process (col. 5 lines 49-55), it is molded as a liquid and then cured into a cured product. The encapsulating material can be an epoxy material (epoxy mold compound- col. 4 lines 10-16). Then the cured product of the thermosetting resin composition is removed from the bottom face of the support member (col. 6 lines 1-14; step shown in Figure 3B).
While Brand does not specifically state that their encapsulating material of an epoxy mold compound is a thermosetting material, KV teaches that epoxy mold compounds are a form of thermoset polymer that is cured in molding ([0025]), therefore Brand is inherently teaching the use of a thermosetting resin composition and of a curing step. This is similar to what is taught by Applicant in the immediate application as Applicant specifies that epoxy resins are a type of thermosetting resin in [0020] of their Specification.
Regarding claim 2, since the thermosetting resin composition of Brand is the same composition being applied to both faces simultaneously, they would have the same volume shrinking rate, which means in respect for each other face, is 100%, which is within the range suggested by Applicant and therefore anticipates it.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in Figure 3A, the thermosetting resin composition is disposed at each of the faces of the support member as a layer.
Regarding claim 4, Brand teaches that the upper and lower cavity of the molding apparatus are aligned uniformly (col. 5 lines 56-61). As such, the thermosetting resin composition is disposed on equal areas of both faces of the support member, or in other words 100% in respect the facial areas. This falls within Applicant’s claimed range of 80-120% and therefore anticipates it.
Regarding claim 6, Brand teaches a method (col. 5 line 36- col. 6 line 14) depicted in Figures 3A and 3B wherein an electronic component device comprising a support member (support member- 130) and an electronic component disposed at one face of the support member (microelectronic substrate- 120; seen on top side of the support member in Figures 3a and 3B) has a composition disposed on each face of the electronic component device (encapsulating material- 160; shown to be on both sides in Figure 3B). As the composition is applied as a molding process (col. 5 lines 49-55), it is molded as a liquid and then cured into a cured product. The encapsulating material can be an epoxy material (col. 4 lines 10-16), which Applicant specifies is a type of thermosetting resin in [0020] of their Specification. Then the cured product of the thermosetting resin composition is removed from the face of the support member opposite of where the electronic component is disposed (col. 6 lines 1-14; step shown in Figure 3B).
Regarding claim 7, since the thermosetting resin composition of Brand is the same composition being applied to both faces simultaneously, they would have the same volume shrinking rate, which means in respect for each other face, is 100%, which is within the range suggested by Applicant and therefore anticipates it.
Regarding claim 8, as seen in Figure 3A, the thermosetting resin composition is disposed at each of the faces of the support member as a layer.
Regarding claim 9, Brand teaches that the upper and lower cavity of the molding apparatus are aligned uniformly (col. 5 lines 56-61). As such, the thermosetting resin composition is disposed on equal areas of both faces of the support member, or in other words 100% in respect the facial areas. This falls within Applicant’s claimed range of 80-120% and therefore anticipates it.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the thermosetting resin composition is to encapsulate the electronic component device (col. 5 lines 36-39), which is a form of sealing and is therefore a sealant. Since the thermosetting resin composition is applied to both faces, this is relevant to both claims 10 and 11.
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.
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.
2. 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.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand and LV as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Okuno et al. (US 6,063,646; hereafter known as Okuno).
Regarding claim 5, Brand does not teach a step of cutting the support member. In a related art, Okuno teaches that when trying to make multiple electronic structures, it is more productionally efficient to manufacture multiple electronic devices (semiconductor chips) on a singular support member (wafer) and then after resin molding, the support member should be cut to make plural electronic component devices (col. 1 lines 22-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to manufacture multiple electronic components on a singular support member and then cut the support member after molding for the advantage of improved production efficiency when making multiple electronic structures.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand and LV as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of Okuno.
Regarding claim 12, Brand does not teach a step of cutting the support member. In a related art, Okuno teaches that for the sake of production efficiency, multiple individual electronic components (semiconductor chips) should be manufactured on a singular support member (wafer) and then after resin molding, the support member should be cut (col. 1 lines 22-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to manufacture multiple electronic components on a singular support member and then cut the support member after molding for the advantage of improved production efficiency.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745